Originally Posted by LinearAQ
I do not wish to use the legal system to restrict any practice of any religion unless that practice violates the freedoms of another person involuntarily.


Boy, that's a tongue twister. let's break that statement down and take a better look at it...

I do not wish to use the legal system to restrict any practice of any religion..

all things should be permitted...

unless that practice violates the freedoms of another person involuntarily.

hmmm.. this part is difficult, the tongue twister part... unless that practice (beliefs, rituals, habits, traditions, customs) violates the freedoms (the desires, the beliefs, the goals, the unlimited rights) .. of another person involuntarily... (the innocent victim/the believer of ritual sacrifice, the rape victim/the practicer of hedonism, just two examples easy to see enough we could go on all day)...

so I am confused, if we stop people from performing ritual sacrifice or raping, we protect tpossible victims but we violate the freedom of the other two, the practicers of sacrifice and hedonism or sadism, to freely practice their beliefs and customs, we violate their rights to freely exist.

You statement has some flaws even though it appears benign and righteous. Do you promote a pro-life stance? do you desire to protect the lives of the unborn or do you promote the idea that a victim, the denial of life to one, is sometimes neceassary to achieve the goals and satisfy the beliefs of another person? So, how does your statement stand in that context? It doesn't. just because you do not recognize the unborn as a life does not mean others must agree with you.

Originally Posted by LinearAQ
Let me give you an example. The Defense Of Marriage Act was a law that passed in Congress to directly allow states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. This is in direct violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and was passed because of the incessant lobbying of Fundamentalist Christian groups.


A vote in congess indicates a majority in favor of a certain opinion. The only place it is in direct violation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution is in the minds of people like yourself who see themselves and their beliefs as more worthy of protection than others. But obviously, in the case of The Defense Of Marriage Act, your opinion is the minority. You fail to recognize the rights of others who do not believe that the recognition of same sex marriages is proper nor that they should be required to recognize such unions in direct conflict with their basic beliefs and long held traditions.

So, even though you state that you don't want anyone to enact laws that force you to act the way others want to act, you none-the-less are arguing incessantly that others should act the way you act, regardless of their beliefs.

the majority disagrees with you Linear. You are a dictator in a freeman's clothing but your jacket is invisible.