If I had to venture an educated guess, I'd say my fundamentalist parents wouldn't frequent a Muslim bakery or ask a known gay to do anything for them. They'd have Chic-fil-A cater for them and have a friend at church make the cake.
Yes it is a joke. The ruling is a joke. Let's put a church on every corner and move out all the taco trucks.
I'm not making a joke. I'm totally serious. If I had a dollar for every time the Anti-Christ was coming I wouldn't need to work anymore. I'm sick of hearing that and I'm sick of all this Hitler talk from the left too. Both sides need to just duke it out in some epic cage match. Winner take all. I'll be the one selling popcorn in the back...
This is a report of an interesting study on the length of Thanksgiving visits in the US. Comparing 2015 with 2016 using anonymous mobile phone records for 10 million people, the study found a significant drop in the length of visits. The effect was considerably greater in areas, such as Florida, targeted by a lot of political advertising.
Just checked out that link and find it very disturbing. I've heard the same thing from friends at work who visit their families too, Thanksgiving or otherwise. When there's no room for compromise, the only option is to polarize. As much as I argue with my parents, I have no problem visiting them. People seem to lack a sense of perspective these days. Who cares if I don't agree with them about everything? They're still my parents...
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
Why don't DACA folks just give up, then? According to you, that would be easier than trying to fight for their rights all the way to the Supreme Court.
Except, when you know, an entire city does it and starts putting signs in the windows that read "No Gays Allowed"
That's never happened in the history of the United States and doesn't go against Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If you think you can find any example of an entire city with a population greater than or equal to 250 doing such a thing, please let the rest of us know. Of course, if you can find *any* city doing such a thing then you should still let us know about it. This is 2018, not 1918.
Please remember to be respectful of everyone in your discussions here! Many members of these forums are religious and I am sure they do not appreciate being having themselves and their beliefs ridiculed and insulted like this. Respectful disagreement with religious beliefs is ok, but many of the previous posts are anything but respectful.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
I myself have stated the distinction between these two things and the past, and suggested that people avoid the latter while saying the former is acceptable. But calling people "lunatics" is not criticizing an idea--it is criticizing people.
Trump has now tweeted that he has the "absolute" power to pardon himself.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
Well I believe religions are fairy tales. Forcing me to interiorize my opinion is disrespectful to my beliefs.
Anyway, I understand to some people people religion and politics are linked but they really shouldn't. Politics are about power and interests and religions are merely pretextes here. Religion should be a private business matter and that's all.
Talking of politics Netanyahu will meet that controversial US embassador to Germany, Trump buddy, that says he support far-right sovereignist parties and the USA should be standing for them.
That's right after he met with Merkel. Who is obviously a political opponent to these sovereignist far-right parties. We have a French language term for her attitude and it's "veule". Someone who's attitude is submissive by nature and let himself (or here herself) humiliated. My online dictionnary translates it by "spineless". Well, I do think her attitude here is spineless, but my thoughts run deeper. She doesn't dare to even merely oppose Netanyahu just because of the overtones of the holocaust that still weight a lot on German-Israeli politics.
Seeing it from here, she invites him and he goes discussing with someone who openly supports her adversaries? That's weaker than spineless.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
Well I don't mind it personally, but I would point out that is nonsense. Many hedonists may well be atheists, but your claim does not follow from that.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
This seems to suggest that you think morals depend on religion. While some religious people have argued that in the past, most philosophers / ethicists would strongly disagree. Plato encapsulated this view neatly by asking “Are things right because the gods command them, or do they command them because they are right?” - if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless. - if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
What you just said is ridiculous and shows a complete ignorance of what both hedonism and atheism is.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
"A third world country still follows rules from the dark ages, so my first world country should too!"
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
What you just said is ridiculous and shows a complete ignorance of what both hedonism and atheism is.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
"A third world country still follows rules from the dark ages, so my first world country should too!"
A gay couple had their day in court in the U.S. The only thing that same gay couple would get in a Muslim country would be matching guillotines.
And no, there is a HUGE difference between the United States and any Muslim country.
** Might I also add that in those same Muslim countries, you would not be able to 'practice' hedonism or be an Atheist. Again, HUGE difference.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
What you just said is ridiculous and shows a complete ignorance of what both hedonism and atheism is.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
"A third world country still follows rules from the dark ages, so my first world country should too!"
A gay couple had their day in court in the U.S. The only thing that same gay couple would get in a Muslim country would be matching guillotines.
And no, there is a HUGE difference between the United States and any Muslim country.
** Might I also add that in those same Muslim countries, you would not be able to 'practice' hedonism or be an Atheist. Again, HUGE difference.
Amazing, you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
What you just said is ridiculous and shows a complete ignorance of what both hedonism and atheism is.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
"A third world country still follows rules from the dark ages, so my first world country should too!"
A gay couple had their day in court in the U.S. The only thing that same gay couple would get in a Muslim country would be matching guillotines.
And no, there is a HUGE difference between the United States and any Muslim country.
** Might I also add that in those same Muslim countries, you would not be able to 'practice' hedonism or be an Atheist. Again, HUGE difference.
Amazing, you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried.
Oh well, since it's no longer a political thread but a religious one let's take a dive in it. Warning, there's likely going to be dozen of reasons here to ban me....
First of all here that's something that read a whole lots of these religious books talking. Like the Bibles, the Coran, the Avesta (Zoroastrianism), these religious Baha'I books (too many to mention), the gnostic gospel of St Thomas, the Orthodoxic Book of Enoch (I only miss a few obscure texts and I'm done with these anyway) as well as pletora of historical and sociologic texts. Only translations though.
One thing that often baffled me is this "judeo-christian" myth. When you look at the new testament its laws clearly rewrite, replace, take-often (bar the useless mention) laws from the old testament (essentially the Jewish bible, as the first five books form the Torah) while the Cu'ran confirms and completes (that's quoted straight from it) the first books. Shouldn't judeo-islamic be more accurate? Just saying, ultra-orthodoxic jews and radical muslims share way too much for my taste... it's a compliment for neither.
Christianism, as it was conceived by the founding fathers of the church, those roman-byzantine scholars who digged old texts (but ignored some at the same time, and here byzantine is just shorthand for Greek speaking citizen of the roman empire) took great care to make those often contradictory and incomplete textes into a comprehensive system that was compatible, god forbids, with the Roman Law (ultimate heresy, a pagan legislative system that worked better). Let's say these guys, Origen of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Gregory I, turned Christianism into a state religion that asserted the religious power and the regalian power (Give what belongs to God to God, and what belongs to Caesar to Caesar).
So even in the very first place, religions are at the end merely tools for power. I'll give you an ancient but annoying story. The pharoh Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten. That mean "the son of the unique God". His father tried to asset the regalian power over corporations that were each represented by a god. After a bunch of failed assassination attemps and countless argument at the count he changed his name to Tutankhamun. Setting himself as a part of the polytheist cults. That's where it starts, monotheism vs polytheism at first was merely a struggle between corporations (not far from the modern sense) and the regalian absolute power.
That was long before "modern" monotheistic religions, of which BTW Zoroastrianism is the first (warning ultra offending opinion writen here, no doubt plenty of people could quote religious nonsensical and unasserted textes to prove this otherwise).
To return to christianity, if you look at the history of Jesus and Caesar there are plenty of odd "coincidence". Caesar starts his story in Gallia (Gaul) and Jesus in Gallilelae, they both meet an ennemy: the legion of the senate and the demon legion of satan, in a fateful city, cofirnaum and cafarnaum, and move on to Rome or Jerusalem. Beside, both could have almost happen in the same era? Coincidence? More like a previous cult imprinted into a more recent one. Oh, and I forgot the oath crossing the rubicon, or the jordan was it? Oh (again) yes, because Caesar was exposed on a cross (a torture instrument before being religious) with an olive wreath (which incidentaly became an imperial symbol) as opposed to Jesus and the crown of thorns...
Sorry folks, too much coincidence for my taste to take religious textes seriously.
I'll just keep one thing to my mind, the quintessential spine. We Europeans white/aryan/superior people (bars the useless point, if you understand sarcasm you can bar more than one) starting to fart louder than others only when we challenged and put these religious doctrines in questions. And most of our modern conservative people here are, by religious standards, lousy conservatives.
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
What you just said is ridiculous and shows a complete ignorance of what both hedonism and atheism is.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
"A third world country still follows rules from the dark ages, so my first world country should too!"
A gay couple had their day in court in the U.S. The only thing that same gay couple would get in a Muslim country would be matching guillotines.
And no, there is a HUGE difference between the United States and any Muslim country.
** Might I also add that in those same Muslim countries, you would not be able to 'practice' hedonism or be an Atheist. Again, HUGE difference.
Amazing, you couldn't have missed the point more if you tried.
Maybe I did on purpose or maybe you missed mine?
Eh, maybe.
Obviously the USA has a lot more personal freedom than most (all) muslim countries. That is not to say the USA isn't ridiculously backwards in a lot of things.
To be honest, in my point of view the problem starts with having "christian" or "muslim" countries. Keeping religion out of politics would be for the best. Thank god I was born in europe...
Maybe we should have a new religious topic, as this one is good to keep as politics.
When you look at history, politics and religion were basically the same thing and still are in many countries to this day.
Bringing this back to the cake story... It baffles me how that isn't crystal clear text book discrimination. The sad truth is most cake shops (or any business) will give another reason "oh, it's not because you're gay, it's because you were rude in my shop" for example... It's very easy for any business to discriminate, without getting caught or telling anyone. That's why discrimination can't be fixed by laws, it must come through understanding and education. Both sides are to blame... The person discriminating for being ignorant and the person shouted at them for being "evil". Ignorance isn't evil, it's simply a lack of knowledge and understanding. It sounds overly simple, but if that baker simply spent time talking with other scholars, priests and Christians of all sexualities, I truly believe he would at least understand respect for their beliefs and be happy to bake them a cake.
One idea... To prove a point by discriminating against majority groups... That to me is very Trump thinking, fight fire with fire. Without trying to sound too cheesy, only love can fight hate. A Christian is by definition a person who tries to be Christ like... Jesus would not discriminate, nor would he judge the baker... Instead he would show both groups that there is no right or wrong, only those with love and those without.
Obviously the USA has a lot more personal freedom than most (all) muslim countries. That is not to say the USA isn't ridiculously backwards in a lot of things.
That's essentially my perspective on these issues. The Western world is ahead of the Middle East on homosexuality just like it's ahead of the Middle East on practically everything. But I don't feel the need to highlight that fact because it's simply not relevant.
The point of critiquing American society is not to portray it as morally inferior to other countries. That would be silly. The point is to call attention to a problem and advocate solving it.
If the argument was "the United States is a below average country," then you could disprove that argument in a thousand different ways. But that's not the argument. The argument is "this thing in the United States is bad," and saying "Saudi Arabia is worse" doesn't disprove that argument.
You can say we're 100 years ahead of Saudi Arabai, but the only reason we are is because we weren't content with being only 99 years ahead. We measure our success by comparing ourselves to the greater nation we can be; not the lesser nation that other countries already are.
I guess we need to start our own religion as stupid as that sounds. Because if you do, you can just ignore laws of men and society. Supreme Court what a joke. What kind of standard is "your nutty beliefs in magic men in the sky and fairy tales shall not be infringed by the real world" which is what they are basically saying.
The EXACT same standard that says the real world shouldn't infringe upon the belief that gender is a choice and/or doesn't exist - do you make these same "America is dying" claims whenever a law or court ruling is issued in favor of that principle?
Being disrespectful of an idea (e.g. religion) is not being disrespectful of persons.
As long as you don't mind my saying that there's a fine line between atheism and hedonism. Many hedonists are atheists because they don't want to believe there are any consequences to their actions. No soul, no reason to follow any moral code except punishment by society.
This seems to suggest that you think morals depend on religion. While some religious people have argued that in the past, most philosophers / ethicists would strongly disagree. Plato encapsulated this view neatly by asking “Are things right because the gods command them, or do they command them because they are right?” - if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless. - if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
Good thing we have just proved that calling people crazy for being religious is okay, but anyone criticizing the lack of religion IMMEDIATELY gets pushed back. Way to show your obvious hatred and predjudice of people different than you thread.
Comments
Trump has now tweeted that he has the "absolute" power to pardon himself.
Anyway, I understand to some people people religion and politics are linked but they really shouldn't. Politics are about power and interests and religions are merely pretextes here. Religion should be a private business matter and that's all.
Talking of politics Netanyahu will meet that controversial US embassador to Germany, Trump buddy, that says he support far-right sovereignist parties and the USA should be standing for them.
That's right after he met with Merkel. Who is obviously a political opponent to these sovereignist far-right parties. We have a French language term for her attitude and it's "veule". Someone who's attitude is submissive by nature and let himself (or here herself) humiliated. My online dictionnary translates it by "spineless". Well, I do think her attitude here is spineless, but my thoughts run deeper. She doesn't dare to even merely oppose Netanyahu just because of the overtones of the holocaust that still weight a lot on German-Israeli politics.
Seeing it from here, she invites him and he goes discussing with someone who openly supports her adversaries? That's weaker than spineless.
- if things are right simply because the gods command them, then their commands are arbitrary and morality becomes meaningless.
- if the gods command them because they are right then there is a separate standard of what is right that exists independently of the gods (and is just as accessible to an atheist as a religious person).
And no, there is a HUGE difference between the United States and any Muslim country.
** Might I also add that in those same Muslim countries, you would not be able to 'practice' hedonism or be an Atheist. Again, HUGE difference.
First of all here that's something that read a whole lots of these religious books talking. Like the Bibles, the Coran, the Avesta (Zoroastrianism), these religious Baha'I books (too many to mention), the gnostic gospel of St Thomas, the Orthodoxic Book of Enoch (I only miss a few obscure texts and I'm done with these anyway) as well as pletora of historical and sociologic texts. Only translations though.
One thing that often baffled me is this "judeo-christian" myth. When you look at the new testament its laws clearly rewrite, replace, take-often (bar the useless mention) laws from the old testament (essentially the Jewish bible, as the first five books form the Torah) while the Cu'ran confirms and completes (that's quoted straight from it) the first books. Shouldn't judeo-islamic be more accurate? Just saying, ultra-orthodoxic jews and radical muslims share way too much for my taste... it's a compliment for neither.
Christianism, as it was conceived by the founding fathers of the church, those roman-byzantine scholars who digged old texts (but ignored some at the same time, and here byzantine is just shorthand for Greek speaking citizen of the roman empire) took great care to make those often contradictory and incomplete textes into a comprehensive system that was compatible, god forbids, with the Roman Law (ultimate heresy, a pagan legislative system that worked better). Let's say these guys, Origen of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Gregory I, turned Christianism into a state religion that asserted the religious power and the regalian power (Give what belongs to God to God, and what belongs to Caesar to Caesar).
So even in the very first place, religions are at the end merely tools for power. I'll give you an ancient but annoying story. The pharoh Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten. That mean "the son of the unique God". His father tried to asset the regalian power over corporations that were each represented by a god. After a bunch of failed assassination attemps and countless argument at the count he changed his name to Tutankhamun. Setting himself as a part of the polytheist cults. That's where it starts, monotheism vs polytheism at first was merely a struggle between corporations (not far from the modern sense) and the regalian absolute power.
That was long before "modern" monotheistic religions, of which BTW Zoroastrianism is the first (warning ultra offending opinion writen here, no doubt plenty of people could quote religious nonsensical and unasserted textes to prove this otherwise).
To return to christianity, if you look at the history of Jesus and Caesar there are plenty of odd "coincidence". Caesar starts his story in Gallia (Gaul) and Jesus in Gallilelae, they both meet an ennemy: the legion of the senate and the demon legion of satan, in a fateful city, cofirnaum and cafarnaum, and move on to Rome or Jerusalem. Beside, both could have almost happen in the same era? Coincidence? More like a previous cult imprinted into a more recent one. Oh, and I forgot the oath crossing the rubicon, or the jordan was it? Oh (again) yes, because Caesar was exposed on a cross (a torture instrument before being religious) with an olive wreath (which incidentaly became an imperial symbol) as opposed to Jesus and the crown of thorns...
Sorry folks, too much coincidence for my taste to take religious textes seriously.
I'll just keep one thing to my mind, the quintessential spine. We Europeans white/aryan/superior people (bars the useless point, if you understand sarcasm you can bar more than one) starting to fart louder than others only when we challenged and put these religious doctrines in questions. And most of our modern conservative people here are, by religious standards, lousy conservatives.
You can censor me now.
Obviously the USA has a lot more personal freedom than most (all) muslim countries.
That is not to say the USA isn't ridiculously backwards in a lot of things.
To be honest, in my point of view the problem starts with having "christian" or "muslim" countries. Keeping religion out of politics would be for the best.
Thank god I was born in europe...
When you look at history, politics and religion were basically the same thing and still are in many countries to this day.
Bringing this back to the cake story... It baffles me how that isn't crystal clear text book discrimination. The sad truth is most cake shops (or any business) will give another reason "oh, it's not because you're gay, it's because you were rude in my shop" for example... It's very easy for any business to discriminate, without getting caught or telling anyone. That's why discrimination can't be fixed by laws, it must come through understanding and education. Both sides are to blame... The person discriminating for being ignorant and the person shouted at them for being "evil". Ignorance isn't evil, it's simply a lack of knowledge and understanding. It sounds overly simple, but if that baker simply spent time talking with other scholars, priests and Christians of all sexualities, I truly believe he would at least understand respect for their beliefs and be happy to bake them a cake.
One idea... To prove a point by discriminating against majority groups... That to me is very Trump thinking, fight fire with fire. Without trying to sound too cheesy, only love can fight hate. A Christian is by definition a person who tries to be Christ like... Jesus would not discriminate, nor would he judge the baker... Instead he would show both groups that there is no right or wrong, only those with love and those without.
The point of critiquing American society is not to portray it as morally inferior to other countries. That would be silly. The point is to call attention to a problem and advocate solving it.
If the argument was "the United States is a below average country," then you could disprove that argument in a thousand different ways. But that's not the argument. The argument is "this thing in the United States is bad," and saying "Saudi Arabia is worse" doesn't disprove that argument.
You can say we're 100 years ahead of Saudi Arabai, but the only reason we are is because we weren't content with being only 99 years ahead. We measure our success by comparing ourselves to the greater nation we can be; not the lesser nation that other countries already are.
The EXACT same standard that says the real world shouldn't infringe upon the belief that gender is a choice and/or doesn't exist - do you make these same "America is dying" claims whenever a law or court ruling is issued in favor of that principle?