General

[quote=Darkwizzie]'To help atheists understand, I love Jesus the same way you love your friends and family.'
The same way, ok. But out of curiosity, do you love god more than you love your family?[/quote]
No, I do not. I love them the same way....

[quote=Vicariously]Why are parents even allowed to deny their children medical care?[/url]
As far as I know (but I don't know how it is in America) it's the parents' duty to make sure the child is healthy and has a safe environment to grow up in. If the child's wellbeing is in danger - especially for a long time - then the kid can be taken away by the parents. Therefore they are not allowed to deny the child medical care legally though I'm not so sure where the limits are (e.g. if going to some sort of shaman instead of actual doc counts but I doubt it honestly)

As for religion - I think it shouldn't affect others at all and only the religious person themselves.
Religion is fine and nice as long as you get motivation, faith, will to live and good feelings out of it - but to me everything beyond that is ignorant, stupid, or worthless.

I'm not religious at all, I found it to be mind-dulling. To me religion (Christianity in my case) felt like a cage that someone is trying to force me into. I used to believe it cause I was taught to believe, not because it was MY will to do so.
I've found many aspects in religion that irritate me (e.g. the claim that there is hell which to me is only a try of religion to discipline people/keep them from doing bad things. Scaring someone is the easiest option to make them obey)

Honestly, I also think that parents shouldn't raise their child religiously like that.
They should be open-minded and let the child know it has options. It can believe in god, it can believe in Allah, it can believe in Buddah, it can believe in anything as long as it is happy and feels safe and that no matter what it will be loved and accepted anyway.
Religion should be a sincere belief, not something you grow up with because it was planted in your brain and you know nothing else (it can has ugly forms. Just like racist parents could raise its kid to become a racist even though naturally it wouldn't have chosen that path...)

I also think that people shouldn't treat others differently just cause of their belief. It doesn't affect you what someone thinks, feels or believes in. What they do at home (my, just imagine, someone could pile their dishes the wrong way! JUST IMAGINE! WAAAAAAR!) and what they do in their life is none of your business. If they're a customer treat them as such, no matter ther skin color, religion or sexual orientation.

The whole deal that humans make about that crap is pretty annoying ; w ;

@LostMyJob: The problem is the "hardcore" believers will have to break human laws and rules to be able to follow their religion (e.g. the action of stoning someone that has sinned. Killing someone for their sins ain't an option nowadays)
Everyone else who claims to be a believer are hypocrites, especially those that live by human law but claim to be fully religious (like the dad of my Fiance's best friend...)
Nearly every religious person you will meet is a hypocrite and only selectively religious (meaning they only CHOOSE to believe in certain things rather than believing the entire thing. Meaning they may compromise with one thing but insist on another just for their own sake)
I don't mind anyone being religious but when it comes to the point where it negatively affects somebody else it really starts to tick me off. Or when they're being so overly ignorant that you can't reason with them anymore (like the parents of that kid...)

Didn't read the bill, but my problem is that the separation of church and state is already lacking. There are so many religious influences in the US (not all are required by law, but are commonly practiced). Like swearing on the bible in court, or the president swearing on the bible when he's sworn into office. Then there are laws on homosexual rights, and abortion, in which, people always bring religion into debates regarding those. Then, there's lines about god, on our money and in the pledge of allegiance and on a lot of government seals.

I'm all for everyone having their own religious views, but the church and state don't feel all that separate to me. It's always something I question.

[quote=JamesInNinja]This basically hit every single point I would have, but not as well. Good on you.[/quote]

Uhhhh...
Ok then.

I only came in here because I thought this was a conversation about NOFX...I'll be on my way now, Carry on.

[quote=Darkwizzie]'I know that the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects my right to free speech and my free exercise of religion, but I'm starting to question it.'
You automatically garner a little bit of respect for saying that. Simply the act of questioning things is good regardless of the conclusions.

'To help atheists understand, I love Jesus the same way you love your friends and family.'
The same way, ok. But out of curiosity, do you love god more than you love your family?

'As far as freedom goes, our beliefs should be protected irregardless if you agree or disagree with it.'
Reminds me of the 'under god' in our Pledge of Allegiance.

'I understand that not everyone beliefs are the same, and that's certainly true among Christians. I believe that God and Jesus loves all us, and I also believe that we should love each other. Because of that, I find Washington State Senate bill 5927 to be problematic
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5927&year=2013#history
This bill would allow businesses to deny service to anyone that he/she thinks is gay because of his/her religious convictions.'
I don't just find that to be problematic, I find that to be blatantly unconstitutional and pathetic. Reminds me of older Mormonism vs Black people. This is shoving religious beliefs down others, and the result is open discrimination. Letting Christians go to church, sure, that's ok. But letting Christians deny service to others based on religion, no.

.....(Cont)

Where is TrueAtheist, wake him up. <3[/quote]

This basically hit every single point I would have, but not as well. Good on you.

'I know that the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects my right to free speech and my free exercise of religion, but I'm starting to question it.'
You automatically garner a little bit of respect for saying that. Simply the act of questioning things is good regardless of the conclusions.

'To help atheists understand, I love Jesus the same way you love your friends and family.'
The same way, ok. But out of curiosity, do you love god more than you love your family?

'As far as freedom goes, our beliefs should be protected irregardless if you agree or disagree with it.'
Reminds me of the 'under god' in our Pledge of Allegiance.

'I understand that not everyone beliefs are the same, and that's certainly true among Christians. I believe that God and Jesus loves all us, and I also believe that we should love each other. Because of that, I find Washington State Senate bill 5927 to be problematic
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5927&year=2013#history
This bill would allow businesses to deny service to anyone that he/she thinks is gay because of his/her religious convictions.'
I don't just find that to be problematic, I find that to be blatantly unconstitutional and pathetic. Reminds me of older Mormonism vs Black people. This is shoving religious beliefs down others, and the result is open discrimination. Letting Christians go to church, sure, that's ok. But letting Christians deny service to others based on religion, no.

'I believe the government shouldn't interfere with your business and your beliefs, but I also don't think you should be allowed to hate and discriminate against people just because you don't like other people's private love life. I'm really conflicted on this.'
Way I see it is this. One should be allowed to hate somebody's guts or yell at them or whatnot. But one is not allowed to refuse service, or pay lower wage, etc based on the basis of sexual orientation. When the beliefs of one individual leads him or her to deny service to another group of people like that, they are infringing on the well-being and the rights of others. That's a no-no.

'And you all probably already heard of this story a while ago. These parents used prayer to heal their child instead of sending him to the doctor, and now Brandon is dead.
http://rt.com/usa/second-child-dies-parents-pray-301/
I'm glad the parents could face jailtime for letting an eight-month-old child die, but why couldn't they have gone to jail sooner when their first son died? Why are parents even allowed to deny their children medical care?'
Because this is a very religious country and religion still holds quite a bit of weight. There's a stigma of going against religion.

"In 2005 the circumcision by a mohel for babies by amputating the flap of skin, sucking it with the mouth, and spitting it out, blood, saliva and all, led to the infection of genital herpes for several small boys (none of which consented) and the death of about two dozen babies. Backed by the religion columnist of the New York Times, the Jewish community managed to stop the government from making an immediate verdict. If any other such dangerous practice occurred without religion attached to it, surely the public health department would have stopped it by now. But no, with religion involved, the capital of the modern world at the 21st century is unable to touch religion."

^Paraphrased by me from Christopher Hitchens.

'Why do we allow people to have the right to let their children die just because of their religious beliefs?'
To be honest, to a lesser extent I see a likeness to that with parents teaching kids their religion so they are indoctrinated. It's when parents decide what's best for children based on religion without a children being able to decide. But of course, death is way more serious and I don't even think indoctrination deserves any sort of punishment. I just heavily shun it, is all. I think religious moderates cause this stigma of going against religion and criticizing faith. It's very tragic that children have to die but keep in mind in other parts of the world people are killing other's children over religion. We've got to be careful and vigilant against religious kooks who would hurt other human beings or discriminate other human beings on basis of religion alone. And we must call it out for what it is, complete BS that shouldn't be tolerated.

'I think freedom is important and it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for?'
No, because this would be overt freedom for one person at the cost of other people's freedom.

Where is TrueAtheist, wake him up. <3

[quote=LostMyJob]Before i start, i'd just like to say that when i say "Religious" people i mean those hardcore people that wear clothes and pray for 1000000 hours. Sorry to be mean but religious people will bend their reasons, so for example: That eight month old died cause he wasn't taken to the doctor but instead was being prayed for, his/her's religious parents could've said "God had his reasons (blahblahblah)" seriously, religious people are full of crap. it makes me want to smash their heads in.
If you read the book - I Am Not Esther it will make you think how full of - religious people tend to be.
I don't mind people who aren't as serious as those hardcores, its just ugh. [b]PLEASE DON'T BE OFFENDED![/b][/quote]
Please understand that most Christians, and other religious people, do not think about death the way you do, but there are similarities. For example, when a child dies, everyone thinks about things Brandon cannot experience because his life was cut short. When a child dies, we think about the people whose lives are worse off because they will never get to meet and love Brandon, and we think about the people who are heartbroken because they knew Brandon.
But Christians do not think about death as if Brandon is gone forever. Brandon went to Heaven and is at a better place.

[quote=cb000]Just so you know, the parents never had the right to deny the child medical care because of their religious beliefs. Someone messed up big time when they weren't jailed after the first death. And after the second incident, they went to jail not for practicing their religious beliefs but for killing a child through improper care. Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it as an excuse to infringe upon another's rights, which in this case was the child's right to live.[/quote]
The article said they are going to jail because they violated their parole, not because they let their child die.
And although it's basically murder, it's technically not murder. Technically, the child died naturally and no one killed him. If Brandon's rights were infringed, it was infringed by mother nature.

you're in washington state too?
Anyways I'm somewhat of a christian but I agree on that church & state should be separated especially in cases such as bill 5927 but i think washington is too liberal for it too pass

Just so you know, the parents never had the right to deny the child medical care because of their religious beliefs. Someone messed up big time when they weren't jailed after the first death. And after the second incident, they went to jail not for practicing their religious beliefs but for killing a child through improper care. Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it as an excuse to infringe upon another's rights, which in this case was the child's right to live.

Nice, a police well-mannered christian. Keep up the good work.

Before i start, i'd just like to say that when i say "Religious" people i mean those hardcore people that wear clothes and pray for 1000000 hours. Sorry to be mean but religious people will bend their reasons, so for example: That eight month old died cause he wasn't taken to the doctor but instead was being prayed for, his/her's religious parents could've said "God had his reasons (blahblahblah)" seriously, religious people are full of crap. it makes me want to smash their heads in.
If you read the book - I Am Not Esther it will make you think how full of - religious people tend to be.

I don't mind people who aren't as serious as those hardcores, its just ugh. [b]PLEASE DON'T BE OFFENDED![/b]

[quote=Zyanid]The description of that bill in the link seems to be the opposite of what you said. o.o
Also, I cringed the second I saw "irregardless". </3[/quote]
I checked the dictionary, and irregardless is a real word, and it's simply an informal version of regardless. I just thought it would be funny if I used irregardless instead of being normal and using regardless.
Anyways, you have to read the entire bill, specifically the underlined portion on the last page
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5927.pdf
"Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization's freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual's or entity owner's sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience."

[quote=catdograt]I don't really think that the example used is a good one to extrapolate to all Christians. Not all of us are "religious fanatics" who believe that just praying for a sick child will heal them. There are instances in the Bible where God has healed people who have asked, but I believe that in that instance, the parents should have taken their child to the doctor. It's kind of like the story where a guy is shipwrecked and asks God to save him, and several boats pass and ask if he needs help, and he says "No, God is going to save me" and as he's drowning, he asks God why he wasn't saved and God answers that He sent the boats and stuff. Following that line of reasoning, I think that God has placed doctors in our life and given us medical knowledge to prevent that sort of thing from happening.[/quote]
It's an extreme example, but it's a real test of the extent of freedom of religious exercise. Not all Christians think prayer will solve all our problems, but some do. Does the government have the right to intervene and force the child to get the medical care he needs, [b]regardless[/b] of the parents' religious convictions? I think the government should intervene, but then that means that we do not really have complete freedom of religious exercise.
I know it's sort of a slippery slope, but to what extent can the government say, "no, your beliefs are wrong and you should go to jail for your beliefs"?

My argument against that Bill is pretty simple:

1. For Capitalism to work we assume that all agents act rationally as it is a system based on rational decisions being made
2. Denying people who are otherwise eligible for the work a job based on something irrelevant to the labor is inherently irrational
3. Allowing such a Bill to pass would be detrimental at promoting a truly capitalistic system and obviously deters the work force in a time of need

I know it seems abstract but think back to when slaves were freed in the South and despite their qualifications for jobs, nobody wanted to hire them based on race. Thus, the economy was underperforming since the culture wasn't conductive to a true, free market. Same thing with this sort of stuff.

I don't really think that the example used is a good one to extrapolate to all Christians. Not all of us are "religious fanatics" (although there are some) who believe that just praying for a sick child will heal them. There are instances in the Bible where God has healed people who have asked, but I believe that in that instance, the parents should have taken their child to the doctor. It's kind of like the story where a guy is shipwrecked and asks God to save him, and several boats pass and ask if he needs help, and he says "No, God is going to save me" and as he's drowning, he asks God why he wasn't saved and God answers that He sent the boats and stuff. Following that line of reasoning, I think that God has placed doctors in our life and given us medical knowledge to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Aside from that, there is a lot of debate. While I don't think that it's right to discriminate against others, I think that if people have honest moral convictions, I think they should have the right to politely decline serving them. For example, if a pastor is asked to preside over a gay wedding, I think that if the pastor feels that they cannot do it with a clear conscience, they are allowed to politely decline. I don't think anyone should be forced or threatened legally to do things they don't feel are right. I think as Christians, though, we are called to love our neighbors, and loving them might not always be what the media or general public might understand as loving. What we are called to do isn't easy. The world will not understand it, and we will experience persecution. (I do not mean that hating gays or calling them derogatory names is right.) I believe that the only way to convince people that what we are doing is right is to emulate Christ's example of love and grace. He never condemned others, and even gave his life for those who hated him. I think it's important to keep that in mind, and that as Christians, we are all sinners, saved by grace; a grace that we do not deserve, and that this grace freely given to us should be extended to others as well.

...
Well, that's quite a wall of text.
Anyway, you catch my drift.

If you think freedom is worth dying for then according to you theres nothing wrong with sacrificing children

[quote=darkchaso69]>I think freedom is important and it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for?
>it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for
>it's worth dying for, sacrificing children
>dying,sacrifice[/quote]
I'm sorry, I'm kind of slow. I'm only capable of understanding complete sentences that are structured and easy to understand. can you please spoonfeed me your main point? Thanks, I really appreciate it.

>I think freedom is important and it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for?
>it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for
>it's worth dying for, sacrificing children
>dying,sacrifice

[quote=darkchaso69]"I think freedom is important and it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for? "
What?[/quote]
Um I don't understand your question. Would you kindly explain what is it about my question that's bothering you?

"I think freedom is important and it's worth dying for, but is it worth sacrificing children for? "
What?