Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Christians getting it wrong (was: "Speak Out Loudly Against This Evil": Internet Erupts Over Biden Declaring Easter "Trans Day Of Visibility")
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:45:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <uuum31$2tla6$2@dont-email.me>
References: <uubp1e$1q8rg$5@dont-email.me> <0at11j9p35t4f6avib0od8hgu2nm8i3870@4ax.com> <uursic$265p5$1@dont-email.me> <l2i51jpiorafkecdun96e68tn9c32o4pr1@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:45:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b35f3a82528bad77260edde5fd5a277";
	logging-data="3069254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/m5Mx0+BFmpkGOHE4PxOSJKr0GY1Urqlo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:d33XF85nSaUrfRR2Pf8f8xbGPSw=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3499

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon
>>civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they
>>have failed at times, succeeded at other times.

>As well they should have.

Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in
imposing religion in civil life. BTR1701 disagrees if the religious
imposition isn't made obvious, but we just got that southern state
appellate court judge who specifically made explicit religious doctrine
in his legal opinion.

>As opposed to the kid reading his Bible in the cafeteria at lunch
>silently and alone.

I agreed with BTR1701 on that one but that wasn't the point I was making
to you.

>>Under such circumstances, in order for the state to remain neutral on
>>religion, it must prevent such people from imposing religious doctrine
>>upon others. Those who are so restrict are not freely exercising
>>religion given that they do not believe that other people are free to
>>have their own creed.
>
>Agreed. I have my own beliefs and while I'd be delighted to see more
>folks adopt them the public square is not the place to encourage them
>to do so.

You are allowed to prosyletize in the public square as long as you are
not infringing on anyone else's rights. You are not allowed to do so to
those attending a public event. That's the bright line distinction.

>>"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public
>>high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming
>>graduation?"

>>It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer
>>are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.

>While Christianity by its nature is expansionist (Jesus' last words
>are said to have been 'go forth and make disciples of all nations')
>there are definitely places where it's appropriate and others where
>its not. Part of being a mature human being is understanding what's
>appropriate and what's not in all sorts of situations in life. And to
>know there are situations where you have to work out the solutions on
>general principles.

>That's why my dog's collar includes a role of small plastic bags and
>why I am grateful to reach a 'bear bin' on the course of his walk.