'Religious Freedom' and the LGBT Community

Does anyone actually have a clear grasp on what 'religious freedom' is these days? I'm quite confused by the term, cause from what I understand, it's the ability to practice your religion freely and openly, either as you see fit or as determined by your own religious doctrine. If that's so, why is it that so many Christians or pseudo-Christians want to get up in arms over the LGBT (I prefer this term over QUILTBAG. I dunno why, but the QUILTBAG just seems offensive for some reason) community wanting to get married. I personally couldn't give a shit in whether or not you're gay, lesbian, bi, or trans, and you want to get married, but I will admit, I do have my preferences over the type of above said (people? lifestyles? It's hard to do this without trying to offend someone). Isn't the underlying point of Christianity to simply worship God, lead a just life, and love everyone?

Maybe I'm just not reading into it enough.

I'll try to answer your question as best as I can since this ONLY MY OPINION please do not hate me or try to judge me base on what I will say I just find this as entertainment since i'm not doing anything right now.

first about religion Catholicism is already a wide spread religion and there so many bunch of time of catholic and Christians group in the world for example here there's the born again,church of christ,the mormons,the jews,the roman Catholic, the christian orthodox and many more. the problems with this groups is that they use Christianity and twist the bible in order to get what they want and of course money. some of this group here would like to choose a official and wants there members to vote for that particular running official. but of course theres a real religion of god you just need to find it.

1. in the bible does it says that if you have a close friend or your husband or wife is of a different religion do you need to force that person to change to Christianity? -well from what I've heard, no. you don't force someone to change but rather try to be with him/her while practicing the lord's teachings

2.does gay/lesbian go to hell in the bible?
-no it's says that on a chapter in the bible I forgot the verse but. it says like this. you are all have sinned before but now you are already cleansed. if you choose the path of holiness you shall enter god's kingdom. put losing over you'll hunger with lust you shall be thrown to boiling sulfur.

3.is it all loving you friends/family/neighbor and other people?
-no you need to love god and you need to have only one god because god is a (envying?) god. (not sure if that the right word. correct me please)

To simplify, let's take religion out and talk about freedom for a second. Like any rational person, I think everyone should be free to do whatever they want just as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Seems simple right? So, on that logic I should be all for religious freedom, right? Right.

However, being religious is a very washed up expression. Some people are religious in the sense that they read a particular book which they deem holy, frequent places they deem holy and pray to a being they deem, you guessed it, holy. All fine and dandy so far, people should be free to do these things. The problem is that some people think that, because they believe they have god on their side, they have the right to take action, namely against the LGBT community. This is not an exercise in freedom. It even ties in the with other preposterous, pathetic, absurd post about hypocrisy.

Praying to whoever you want in your house or church is perfectly fine, retarding equal rights is NOT. Religious freedom isn't a free pass to promote bigotry.

People who pull the religious freedom card over this issue are ignorant. You can be a civil servant, a doctor, lawyer, professor, plumber, cop, actor, trash collector, or mid level manager but still be ignorant.

*chuckles*

The point of Christianity is to stomp out the rights of others while slowing down the development of modern medicine as much as possible by condemning the satanic belief of evolution as you preach "religious freedom!"

*jealous god.

>Optional Explanation<
Basically he won't stand for us having any other God before him, though this can be read into quite a bit, such as if you made 'money' your god, or 'sport' or whatever. This is, however the first of the 10 commandments, and what is said to be the most important, and the one you must break before any other.
(e.g, You might put revenge before god, then commit murder, thus putting something before God)

Anyway, commandments aren't even a requirement for heaven. All you need is to love God and accept him as your savior, who died for our sins.

The rest comes naturally, I guess. You'll want to be a good person, try to uphold his commandments, try to live life in his image.
>End Explanation<

This is where LGBT comes in. If you are religious, you know what you are doing is "wrong", and will likely try to overcome that. Obviously this isn't possible for everyone, because heck, here I am on Fakku preaching to you guys. I don't come here JUST for the community. But I do know that I shouldn't be here, and I try to avoid it.




That's pretty harsh, and very generalized. Christianity as a whole has made a lot of mistakes in the past, when they were much more controlling, due to corruption (some churches are still corrupt today, but far less), but nowadays, you'll find that the "rights" which you speak of are stomped down by people better described not as 'Christian', but 'Extremist'. The religions that blow up buildings all contain kind and peaceful people. All it takes is a few to give the rest a bad name.

Most Christians are against but a few basic things, with good reason too, such as abortion, stem cell research (because of its strong association with abortion, although not all stem cells involve it), and such as.... Uhh, well that's it pretty much. We (in general, we are human, after all) aren't against curing cancer, transplanting organs, (safe) animal research or anything else any more or less than the rest of the population.

Religious freedom is, in the most literal form, exactly what you said. It is the freedom of the people to believe what they want to believe in, and to be able to practice their faith and any requirements thereof, without any negative prejudices being placed against them.

Sadly, this would mean that some people's beliefs about homosexuality being morally wrong, among other things, are legitimate beliefs that they are free to voice and, technically, act on. This is one of the reasons why very few places, if any, have total religious freedom. In order to have a functioning multi-cultural/multi-faith, compromises on what religious people can do must be made to ensure that no-one is is harmed by other peoples religious freedom. An extreme example is if someones religion required human sacrifice: under religious freedom, they should be allowed to do so. However, under almost any countries law, or any persons moral judgement, this is clearly wrong and should not be done.

This is the main reason why religious freedom cannot be fully observed, because one person's freedom often leads to another's oppression.

Still, it is best to give everyone their religious freedom as far as possible, as attempting to stop people believing what they believe is very difficult. It is easier to stop them talking about beliefs (and I only refer to hateful or prejudiced beliefs), but this method would incur all sorts of ethical issues, especially in America where freedom of speech is one of the most important national freedoms.

This is a very tricky topic, and has no definite answers, but the general rule I live by is "You can do what you want, just don't be mean to people."

Yowza, got my first downvote. Make a joke about religion, and suddenly you're the devil.

*badum-tss*

Stopping back by for the sake of making that crappy joke and pointing out that I don't seriously believe the intention of religion is to oppress people, even though I will openly state that it often does whether the people following it mean to or not. Again, I'm joking when I act like the majority of say, christians, are "against" curing cancer, but they can certainly make things like that quite a bit harder.

(also you put the wrong name in your quote, and I know you weren't the one who'd down voted, not that I care about my rep)

I certainly get a kick out of your jokes. And grammar furher? I was thinking the same thing after I made the post. I was even considering making a new account with a similar name, where I would correct nearly every post including my own. I'm still chuckling.

Sorry I didn't pick up on the joke, since more often than not, it isn't one. I'd prefer a world where people realize that any sort of belief, be it Atheism, Christianity or Hinduism is layered on top of a human being, who without fail has interests, ambitions, emotions and some concept of right and wrong. I guess that's most of the reason I bothered to post here.

I wouldn't exactly say 'without fail' for all those things. for instance there are mental and emotional disorders which can mean people lack any sense of morality, or have difficulty with feeling emotions.

Really, people are far too varied and complex to apply any sort of generalization to with a large amount of certainty. That's the main reason lots of people shun the social sciences.

I'm just gonna say it. Why is it that I both lack the ability make people realize when I'm joking and when I'm not, and the ability to understand whether or not other people are being sarcastic?

Because humour and sarcasm are expressed through intonation. Does this mean that you truly perceive me as the grammar furher?

I feel like this is a loaded question. For the record, I know people who refer to themselves as grammar furhers.

I've heard the term "grammar nazi" lots of times, but never have I been called the grammar furher. It's just so extreme I couldn't help but find it funny.

That is probably something to do with the familiarity of the language. People who experience a language from birth gain confidence and knowledge in the colloquial aspects of it, and so are able to use poor spelling and grammar while still making their meaning obvious (usually).

Also, if you want to be really picky, it should be grammar Führer, with an umlaut.

Get oüt