Which is more important to you; freedom of religion or protecting vulnerable people from predatory cults? - which is better element or birdhouse
There is not one or the other, right? The two do not agree, you can not protect freedom of religion and the rules for needy people in abusive cults at a time when. So, what do you think is most important? Would you rather sacrifice the freedom of religion, and thus vulnerable people are victims of hungry wolves, or rather a little freedom to the way in which religious people stretched their religion to govern?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Which Is Better Element Or Birdhouse Which Is More Important To You; Freedom Of Religion Or Protecting Vulnerable People From Predatory Cults?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Science = knowledge and evidence that knowledge. On the contrary, science is ignorance, lack of knowledge or evidence to support this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteChristians base their existence on a single book. Like everyone, we have questions about our universe, but with a book in the eyes of society, science and logic is also react very ignorant views.
Science = knowledge and evidence that knowledge. On the contrary, science is ignorance, lack of knowledge or evidence to support this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteChristians base their existence on a single book. Like everyone, we have questions about our universe, but with a book in the eyes of society, science and logic is also react very ignorant views.
Science = knowledge and evidence that knowledge. On the contrary, science is ignorance, lack of knowledge or evidence to support this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteChristians base their existence on a single book. Like everyone, we have questions about our universe, but with a book in the eyes of society, science and logic is also react very ignorant views.
The freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteTotal freedom of speech / religion in America is what really works.
ReplyDeleteAtleast in Europe, hate speech is illegal and if I remember a pastor in Sweden, was arrested for making homophobic comments.
And the religions like Scientology in France is by legal definition, regarded religion.
I think they should do in the U.S..
And they banned the hijab in schools, should they continue to do so.
Given the history of religions, I would say that the protection of vulnerable people in abusive cults. Still, to protect against other forms of fraud.
ReplyDeleteGiven the history of religions, I would say that the protection of vulnerable people in abusive cults. Still, to protect against other forms of fraud.
ReplyDeleteGiven the history of religions, I would say that the protection of vulnerable people in abusive cults. Still, to protect against other forms of fraud.
ReplyDeleteTrying to persuade people to do this or what is bad on both sides ... For reasons that are funding and wants to say things to each other.
ReplyDeleteI think we can do both.
ReplyDeleteMany sects predators could be considered crooks, how this money sucking people. If people understand these things are scams, I think the leaders should be tried as thieves.
But atheism has no moral basis for defining what is a cult or not predatory. The atheist is obliged to apply criteria from other places - like the Bible.
ReplyDeleteObama has the motto "ignorance is strength."
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion is very important, but that will soon be replaced by a universal religion. Those of you scoff at the idea of an almighty God to worship the beast.
I spread the Gospel through brochures in the field of hotels and one after the other. I could try preaching on the street. It looks like a lot of fun. The roads are pretty good. You could spread in the end the best way for the Gospel, if (when caught) the freedom of expression.
I do not think that should be one or the other. Many service sector activities can be regulated and limited, if it is a fundamental interest of the state. For example, the cult of suicide could be through the state can be closed like any group who is convicted of fraud will be prosecuted to the detriment of members. Orders can be taken to keep the demonstrations by members of the sect in a certain distance from the public (such as the Westboro Baptist Church)
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if people are stupid enough to participate in it, they deserve what they get.
I prefer to have freedom of religion, not because I want to make people "are the victims of wolves", but because if they want, then they have every right to do so. Dis - me exactly what you want from high-risk persons. If you mean people who believe what they hear, no doubt, although there is evidence of that, just because they make a superior told them to believe that ... wait, I'm sorry, I'm confused with the Christians.
ReplyDeleteWe will never accept socialism, Obama is in the ***. The displaced victims of all freedom of his wishes to stay far away from me.
ReplyDeleteWe will never accept socialism, Obama is in the ***. The displaced victims of all freedom of his wishes to stay far away from me.
ReplyDeleteWhy should one or the other?
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion is absolutely necessary. In defense to stifle the freedom to believe as we believe that to choose any concerned. How was the suppression of religious beliefs impact on people under the rule of kings? First they said they had to believe in a sense, then another. This is * not * in itself a form of religious bigotry?
Of course you can have both.
ReplyDeleteLaw to protect religious freedom for all, including the freedom of the anti-religious expression and religious beliefs.
We protect the vulnerable against sects foreclosure sucked in a climate of religious freedom by the high quality of education, where traces of the cult-robbers are clearly defined, and to identify the people in these cults. With a sound understanding of religion and cults in general people can not emotionally vulnerable Armed mentally prepared, but the confidence of the people who are spiritually prepared for the difficult questions which it would prefer not to answer to ask.
Of course you can have both.
ReplyDeleteLaw to protect religious freedom for all, including the freedom of the anti-religious expression and religious beliefs.
We protect the vulnerable against sects foreclosure sucked in a climate of religious freedom by the high quality of education, where traces of the cult-robbers are clearly defined, and to identify the people in these cults. With a sound understanding of religion and cults in general people can not emotionally vulnerable Armed mentally prepared, but the confidence of the people who are spiritually prepared for the difficult questions which it would prefer not to answer to ask.
Faulty assumption.
ReplyDeleteYou can have freedom of religion (which has the mandate of our Constitution .... May you want to try more) and to protect the vulnerable.
Help to open a book from time to time.
Read more.
1) What is most important to you, the freedom of religion and protection of vulnerable people in abusive cults?
ReplyDeleteThe freedom of religion. This right is more important than the protection of people made bad decisions before.
2 It is) not one or the other, right?
Of course not. The two are not incompatible.
Jim http://www.bible-reviews.com
There is nothing to say that we have to give biblical place to another. All things are of equal importance as the cause of Christ. Try out of the box thinking.
ReplyDeletePhilippians 4:13 - "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
Given the history of religions, I would say that the protection of vulnerable people in abusive cults. Still, to protect against other forms of fraud.
ReplyDeleteGiven the history of religions, I would say that the protection of vulnerable people in abusive cults. Still, to protect against other forms of fraud.
ReplyDeleteTrying to persuade people to do this or what is bad on both sides ... For reasons that are funding and wants to say things to each other.
ReplyDeleteWhy should one or the other?
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion is absolutely necessary. In defense to stifle the freedom to believe as we believe that to choose any concerned. How was the suppression of religious beliefs impact on people under the rule of kings? First they said they had to believe in a sense, then another. This is * not * in itself a form of religious bigotry?
Why should one or the other?
ReplyDeleteFreedom of religion is absolutely necessary. In defense to stifle the freedom to believe as we believe that to choose any concerned. How was the suppression of religious beliefs impact on people under the rule of kings? First they said they had to believe in a sense, then another. This is * not * in itself a form of religious bigotry?