Why should religious exemptions to laws be limited to conservatives?

vibise

Well-known member

If religious people can opt out of secular laws they find sinful, then maybe the rest of us should be able to opt out of religious laws we find immoral.

That’s right: immoral. We act as if religious people are the only ones who follow a moral compass and the rest of us just wander around like sheep in search of avocado toast. But you don’t need to believe in God or particular religious tenets to have a strong sense of right and wrong...

Rational exemptions could be used for religion-based laws with which people strongly, sincerely disagree. For example, a law that values the life of a quarter-inch embryo more than the life of a person carrying that embryo.

That’s clearly a religious law. It’s not based in science or public health or the Constitution or biological reality. It’s based on the idea that, as Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said on signing the bill, “Our Creator endowed us with the right to life.”

Such laws try to force 21st-century America into alignment with a first-century moral code according to some toxic combination of political posturing, fear-mongering and — sure, why not? — the sincere beliefs of a certain subset of people who adhere to a certain religion.

If they’re going to be making these laws, and the Supreme Court is going to let them, then the rest of us should be able to opt out.

Many anti-covid vax people are attempting to use religious exemptions to get themselves excuses from the mandates at their workplaces. However, there seem to be no major religions that oppose these vaccines on religious grounds, so these people are reduced to arguing that they have sincerely based beliefs.

OK, so if they can get away with this, why can't the rest of us refuse to go along with religion-based laws like opposition to accurate sex ed, contraception, abortion, discrimination against LGBTQ, etc?
 

Yakuda

Well-known member





Many anti-covid vax people are attempting to use religious exemptions to get themselves excuses from the mandates at their workplaces. However, there seem to be no major religions that oppose these vaccines on religious grounds, so these people are reduced to arguing that they have sincerely based beliefs.

OK, so if they can get away with this, why can't the rest of us refuse to go along with religion-based laws like opposition to accurate sex ed, contraception, abortion, discrimination against LGBTQ, etc?
Those aren't religious based laws, they are secular laws. No religion is requiring you to do anything. Religions don't make secular law. Nice try at making a connection but as usual it's an utter failure. Game Over!
 

vibise

Well-known member
Those aren't religious based laws, they are secular laws. No religion is requiring you to do anything. Religions don't make secular law. Nice try at making a connection but as usual it's an utter failure. Game Over!
You can call them what you will, but the point is that if conservatives can seek exemptions from following laws they don't like by virtue of their religion or sincerely held beliefs, then why shouldn't liberals have the same option, that is, to refuse to follow laws based on their beliefs?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
You can call them what you will, but the point is that if conservatives can seek exemptions from following laws they don't like by virtue of their religion or sincerely held beliefs, then why shouldn't liberals have the same option, that is, to refuse to follow laws based on their beliefs?
We know that it is your utopia that everyone conform to whatever Big Brother decides.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Many anti-covid vax people are attempting to use religious exemptions to get themselves excuses from the mandates at their workplaces. However, there seem to be no major religions that oppose these vaccines on religious grounds, so these people are reduced to arguing that they have sincerely based beliefs.
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose vaccinations, to the point that many older JWs have scars on their upper arm where somebody poured a few drops of acid to simulate a vax scar. Christians don't consider them Christians, but you do. So, by your standard, that's a major religion right there.
OK, so if they can get away with this, why can't the rest of us refuse to go along with religion-based laws like opposition to accurate sex ed, contraception, abortion, discrimination against LGBTQ, etc?
There's no law mandating that you discriminate against homosexuals.

Second, not that you will, but could you please cite these "religion-based laws" for us?
You can call them what you will, but the point is
If the point isn't that they're "religious based laws", then why did you specify them as "religious based laws"?

This seems to be a common tactic with you: Say something Edit per mod and then, when somebody calls you out for saying something edit per mod, you just move the goalposts. It's edit per mod and makes you look silly.
if conservatives can seek exemptions from following laws they don't like by virtue of their religion or sincerely held beliefs, then why shouldn't liberals have the same option, that is, to refuse to follow laws based on their beliefs?
The Constitution applies to liberals, too. That's why we always shake our heads when liberals try to tear it down. You have the same rights as everybody else. That you choose not to exercise them is also your right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yakuda

Well-known member
You can call them what you will, but the point is that if conservatives can seek exemptions from following laws they don't like by virtue of their religion or sincerely held beliefs, then why shouldn't liberals have the same option, that is, to refuse to follow laws based on their beliefs?
Well first of all Americans have a constitutional right to practice their religion without infringement from the govt but we all know you leftists raped that idea long long ago.

Next that right is an actual explicit right unlike the rights that leftists love which have to be "found" in the text of the constitution like baby killing.

Lastly are you suggesting leftism is merely a system of beliefs thereby making it a religion?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Well first of all Americans have a constitutional right to practice their religion without infringement from the govt but we all know you leftists raped that idea long long ago.

Next that right is an actual explicit right unlike the rights that leftists love which have to be "found" in the text of the constitution like baby killing.

Lastly are you suggesting leftism is merely a system of beliefs thereby making it a religion?
You could say leftists worship government.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Many anti-covid vax people are attempting to use religious exemptions to get themselves excuses from the mandates at their workplaces. However, there seem to be no major religions that oppose these vaccines on religious grounds, so these people are reduced to arguing that they have sincerely based beliefs.
Correction many anti-covid jab christian people have actually received a religious exemption. You do understand that?

It's partially based upon this verse and how the poison jab injures and kill people.

1st Cor 3:16 Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

There is also aborted baby stem cell or parts derived from aborted babies in the fax. I sent you a link of what else is inside of your next Jab. Did you watch it?
 

Faithoverbelief

Well-known member
Well first of all Americans have a constitutional right to practice their religion without infringement from the govt but we all know you leftists raped that idea long long ago.

Next that right is an actual explicit right unlike the rights that leftists love which have to be "found" in the text of the constitution like baby killing.

Lastly are you suggesting leftism is merely a system of beliefs thereby making it a religion?
Misrepresenting the poster. Rule 12/22

Do not infringe on religious freedoms!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yakuda

Well-known member
Correction many anti-covid jab christian people have actually received a religious exemption. You do understand that?

It's partially based upon this verse and how the poison jab injures and kill people.

1st Cor 3:16 Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

There is also aborted baby stem cell or parts derived from aborted babies in the fax. I sent you a link of what else is inside of your next Jab. Did you watch it?

Yes, so you have no problem with the satanic Temple and their religious abortion rite. I'm glad to hear that.

Do not infringe on religious freedoms!!
No I don't have a problem with it because God will sort it all out in the end not me. I just repeated what the constitution has to say on the matter. Besides im not intellectually dishonest like leftists are.
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member





Many anti-covid vax people are attempting to use religious exemptions to get themselves excuses from the mandates at their workplaces. However, there seem to be no major religions that oppose these vaccines on religious grounds, so these people are reduced to arguing that they have sincerely based beliefs.

OK, so if they can get away with this, why can't the rest of us refuse to go along with religion-based laws like opposition to accurate sex ed, contraception, abortion, discrimination against LGBTQ, etc?
Abortion laws are not by necessity religious. Some non religious oppose abortion based upon biology.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
If religious people can opt out of secular laws they find sinful, then maybe the rest of us should be able to opt out of religious laws we find immoral.

That’s right: immoral. We act as if religious people are the only ones who follow a moral compass and the rest of us just wander around like sheep in search of avocado toast. But you don’t need to believe in God or particular religious tenets to have a strong sense of right and wrong...

Rational exemptions could be used for religion-based laws with which people strongly, sincerely disagree. For example, a law that values the life of a quarter-inch embryo more than the life of a person carrying that embryo.

That’s clearly a religious law. It’s not based in science or public health or the Constitution or biological reality. It’s based on the idea that, as Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said on signing the bill, “Our Creator endowed us with the right to life.”
There is so much wrong with this quote it is hard to know where to begin. I'm not aware of anybody that values "the life of a quarter inch embryo more than the life of a person carrying that embryo." And when the editorialist says "that's clearly a religious law" they are refuting the point they made in the paragraph immediately above. People can be against abortion who are not religious. That position can be derived on a purely rational basis. And governor Abbet's statement "our creator endowed us with the right to life" could have been uttered by any 19th century pirate who was not religious at all. In fact, most of the Diests that I know, are pointedly not religious. In fact as near as I can tell, there is not a single iota of truth in any part in that entire quotation.
Such laws try to force 21st-century America into alignment with a first-century moral code according to some toxic combination of political posturing, fear-mongering and — sure, why not? — the sincere beliefs of a certain subset of people who adhere to a certain religion.

If they’re going to be making these laws, and the Supreme Court is going to let them, then the rest of us should be able to opt out.
Suggesting that killing babies is inextricably connected to a "first-century moral code" has absolutely no connection to rational discourse of any kind. This is so patently absurd it can only be produced for one reason. That is to make people of a certain political position feel good about holding their position. If you don't stop and think about what's actually being written, you can feel like you've been given a rational basis for your view, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Many anti-covid vax people are attempting to use religious exemptions to get themselves excuses from the mandates at their workplaces.
This has been a very American thing to do dating all the way back to the middle of the 15th century. In fact this is the whole reason that Roger Williams founded Rhode Island. The lords and magistrates of Massachusetts wanted to enforce their religious opinions upon Roger Williams and he refused and was banished. Had he stayed they would've subjected him to corporal punishment and possibly even death. Which is remarkably similar to what Joe Biden is proposing. Guess what, like Roger Williams there are a whole lot of people who aren't going to bend the knee to the archbishop of Covidism.
However, there seem to be no major religions that oppose these vaccines on religious grounds, so these people are reduced to arguing that they have sincerely based beliefs.
Excuse me but that also dates back to Roger Williams in the middle of the 15th century. Roger Williams converted himself from Puritanism to the Baptist Church becoming America's first Baptist, and ultimately to non-denominationalism, becoming America's first nondenominational Christian as well. The whole idea is to prevent someone from standing between a man's conscience and God. This idea is very American, and it's much older than our constitution, but it's protected and specifically recognized by our constitution. And that is the point!
OK, so if they can get away with this, why can't the rest of us refuse to go along with religion-based laws like opposition to accurate sex ed,
Every policy question presents the possibility of having a moral question behind it. The moral standard which is applied to these moral questions either A) are connected to a religious conviction or B) are derived by some other means. Our policy formulation discussions allow for both. So the suggestion that somebody is being left out is flatly counterfactual.
contraception, abortion, discrimination against LGBTQ, etc?
Have you in someway been prevented from making your opinions about these subjects known in the course of the policy discussion that happens on these forms for example? I'm having a hard time seeing the ground of the objection here.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
There is so much wrong with this quote it is hard to know where to begin. I'm not aware of anybody that values "the life of a quarter inch embryo more than the life of a person carrying that embryo." And when the editorialist says "that's clearly a religious law" they are refuting the point they made in the paragraph immediately above. People can be against abortion who are not religious. That position can be derived on a purely rational basis. And governor Abbet's statement "our creator endowed us with the right to life" could have been uttered by any 19th century pirate who was not religious at all. In fact, most of the Diests that I know, are pointedly not religious. In fact as near as I can tell, there is not a single iota of truth in any part in that entire quotation.

Suggesting that killing babies is inextricably connected to a "first-century moral code" has absolutely no connection to rational discourse of any kind. This is so patently absurd it can only be produced for one reason. That is to make people of a certain political position feel good about holding their position. If you don't stop and think about what's actually being written, you can feel like you've been given a rational basis for your view, when nothing could be further from the truth.

This has been a very American thing to do dating all the way back to the middle of the 15th century. In fact this is the whole reason that Roger Williams founded Rhode Island. The lords and magistrates of Massachusetts wanted to enforce their religious opinions upon Roger Williams and he refused and was banished. Had he stayed they would've subjected him to corporal punishment and possibly even death. Which is remarkably similar to what Joe Biden is proposing. Guess what, like Roger Williams there are a whole lot of people who aren't going to bend the knee to the archbishop of Covidism.

Excuse me but that also dates back to Roger Williams in the middle of the 15th century. Roger Williams converted himself from Puritanism to the Baptist Church becoming America's first Baptist, and ultimately to non-denominationalism, becoming America's first nondenominational Christian as well. The whole idea is to prevent someone from standing between a man's conscience and God. This idea is very American, and it's much older than our constitution, but it's protected and specifically recognized by our constitution. And that is the point!

Every policy question presents the possibility of having a moral question behind it. The moral standard which is applied to these moral questions either A) are connected to a religious conviction or B) are derived by some other means. Our policy formulation discussions allow for both. So the suggestion that somebody is being left out is flatly counterfactual.

Have you in someway been prevented from making your opinions about these subjects known in the course of the policy discussion that happens on these forms for example? I'm having a hard time seeing the ground of the objection here.
Archbishop of Covidism. Love it!
 
Top