Starts at 8:26




Religious freedom? What’s that?

Quote:NEW YORK — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a feminist tone on Thursday. She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/hillar...e-changed/

Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

I'm not sure how a religious person can "change their belief" that it is wrong to kill babies out of convenience.

Every single attendee at the "Women in The World Summit" applied Clinton's comments to their version of religion, which is 50% half-bred knuckle dragging redneck Bible thumping barefoot and pregnant hilbilly flyover country Christians, 48% dirty Jew, and 2% "Buddhism is the coolest!"

Don't farking insult my intelligence. Not one person in that room had a concern about a brown women in a Muslim country.

OR, you can just send her a big a$$ check and all will be well.

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Religious beliefs and doctrine can change over time but the changes should evolve and come from consideration within and by that religion and that religion only.

It is absolutely NOT the responsibility or purpose of government to work to force or facilitate changes in religious beliefs especially in a country that has Freedom of Religion included as one of its Bill of Rights.

For liberals who constantly scream for "Separation of Church and State" in an effort to keep religion from influencing government...
her comments are the height of hypocrisy as she is advocating for the State to influence the Church.

Wonder what she might do with a pen and a phone i.e. Executive Orders?

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

For the person running to be the chief law enforcement officer to promote the idea of forcing social change is at best ill advised and at worst a sign they would use authoritarian means to achieve their ends.

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

That is for the individual to decide.

(04-24-2015 01:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

Do you think churches should have tax exempt status if they discriminate by race?

(04-24-2015 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

Do you think churches should have tax exempt status if they discriminate by race?

Yes. Because i actually seem to grasp that the establishment clause was designed to protect churches from the government.

If a church refused to allow my wife to join I would simply find another church.

Believe it or not I can find someones behavior reprehensible without wanting to use government to take care of it for me. It's called being an adult.

(04-24-2015 02:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

Do you think churches should have tax exempt status if they discriminate by race?

Yes. Because i actually seem to grasp that the establishment clause was designed to protect churches from the government.

If a church refused to allow my wife to join I would simply find another church.

Believe it or not I can find someones behavior reprehensible without wanting to use government to take care of it for me. It's called being an adult.

Allowing your wife to be married in the church is a separate issue than infringing upon someones first amendment rights. Not allowing them tax exempt status based on discrimination is not a religious issue, it's a civil rights one. As long as the tax exempt status is revoked from any religion that discriminates based on race, then the religion itself is irrelevant.

(04-24-2015 02:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Allowing your wife to be married in the church is a separate issue than infringing upon someones first amendment rights.

Not really. She has rights and they have rights. Among those rights is association.

Quote:Not allowing them tax exempt status based on discrimination is not a religious issue, it's a civil rights one.

Try to frame it however you want the end effect is government endorsing and establishing one set of religions and its follower up above others.

Quote:As long as the tax exempt status is revoked from any religion that discriminates based on race, then the religion itself is irrelevant.

Why just race? gender? *RELIGION*? why some protected classes and not others?

(04-24-2015 02:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Allowing your wife to be married in the church is a separate issue than infringing upon someones first amendment rights.

Not really. She has rights and they have rights. Among those rights is association.

Quote:Not allowing them tax exempt status based on discrimination is not a religious issue, it's a civil rights one.

Try to frame it however you want the end effect is government endorsing and establishing one set of religions and its follower up above others.

Quote:As long as the tax exempt status is revoked from any religion that discriminates based on race, then the religion itself is irrelevant.

Why just race? gender? *RELIGION*? why some protected classes and not others?

1. You clearly didn't understand my point. Whether or not they choose to marry her is not the 1st amendment issue affected in this. Whether or not they receive federal tax exempt status is.

2. We've always done that, it's nothing new and has a long history. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but you're being patently dishonest if you're portraying this as anything but a single line a long field of striped sand.

3. They're protected classes because we as a society have seen compelling evidence to show protection to people who are discriminated upon for these factors. Pretty simple concept, really.

(04-24-2015 02:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  1. You clearly didn't understand my point. Whether or not they choose to marry her is not the 1st amendment issue affected in this. Whether or not they receive federal tax exempt status is.

You're basing that refusal of tax status on their refusal to marry a person of a given race. You don't get to do that and then divorce to two occurrences.

Quote:2. We've always done that, it's nothing new and has a long history.

You have that backwards Hoss.

Im sorry but Churches have always been tax exempt. Section 501C1 of the tax code clearly states that churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches are excepted from even having to apply for tax exceptions.

The Idea of using taxes as a punitive or preferential method to deal with "state sanctioned religious beliefs" would be the new, and dreadfully scary, way of doing things. Well it could be the old way, the soviet-era way.

Quote:3. They're protected classes because we as a society have seen compelling evidence to show protection to people who are discriminated upon for these factors. Pretty simple concept, really.

Religions are also protected classes. So please let me know should a church be able to discriminate against another religion in their day to day operations and theological view point.

(04-24-2015 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

Do you think churches should have tax exempt status if they discriminate by race?

Please be honest. You aren't interested in a discussion of discrimination on race because it isn't an issue.
Your use of race is a veiled attempt to say Churche should lose their tax exempt status for not marrying gays.

So you are really advocating that a Church that refuses to marry gays should lose their tax exempt status. The Constitution guarantees the free practice of one's religion without interference by the government and that there is no government sanctioned religion i.e. Church of England. If you use a Church's willingness to marry gays as the litmus test for tax exempt status then you are sanctioning some religions as "government approved." That would never pass Constitutional muster.

BTW As a private religious institution, a church is fully within their right to marry whoever they want based on their doctrine. The Catholic Church won't marry divorcees either because it is against their doctrine. Should a willingness to marry divorcees be a litmus test for tax exempt status also so divorcees don't feel discriminated against?

Don't like a Church's rules? Join another Church.
The Episcopal Church is called "Catholic Light" for a reason.

(04-24-2015 03:04 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

Do you think churches should have tax exempt status if they discriminate by race?

Please be honest. You aren't interested in a discussion of discrimination on race because it isn't an issue.
Your use of race is a veiled attempt to say Churche should lose their tax exempt status for not marrying gays.

So you are really advocating that a Church that refuses to marry gays should lose their tax exempt status. The Constitution guarantees the free practice of one's religion without interference by the government and that there is no government sanctioned religion i.e. Church of England. If you use a Church's willingness to marry gays as the litmus test for tax exempt status then you are sanctioning some religions as "government approved." That would never pass Constitutional muster.

BTW As a private religious institution, a church is fully within their right to marry whoever they want based on their doctrine. The Catholic Church won't marry divorcees either because it is against their doctrine. Should a willingness to marry divorcees be a litmus test for tax exempt status also so divorcees don't feel discriminated against?

Don't like a Church's rules? Join another Church.
The Episcopal Church is called "Catholic Light" for a reason.

It's not a veiled threat, why do you think the Mormon church changed their position regarding blacks? I'm sure it was a message from god and not pressure from the IRS.

Bull, I don't think we're going to find any common ground. I don't find your arguments compelling.

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

For the truly religious, their beliefs don't change and that is non-negotiable.

There fact that she would suggest that religious beliefs have to change to allow abortions, or anything really, should be seen as a threat to all religions. Are we to now let the government say what religious beliefs we can and cannot hold?

(04-24-2015 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Sometimes religious beliefs do need to change. I don't know if that's the case here, but you're being ignorant of history if you think the concept is wholly offensive on it's face.

Last I checked, no one is forced to remain in any religion. So if those belief run contrary to the desire to have abortion on demand, there is a solution readily available.

Unfortunately thats not how the left works. They want to strip tax exemptions from churches whos theology and rules run counter to the gaystepo.

Do you think churches should have tax exempt status if they discriminate by race?

Are you talking about employment discrimination or being able to join a church? As an employer if you lose a discrimination suit you might have to pay some fees but in way do you lose tax exempt status reserved for non profits. If the red Cross or Habitat for Humanity loses a discrimination suit they don't lose their non profit status.

Black Baptist churches don't want white people, so what. White person can find another church.