Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Her conflation of her religious and the Constitution were exactly the problem. Point being, she is completely clueless about the Constitution with respect to religion.
She has the freedom to say and do what she thinks. Unfortunately, she's also an elected official and in that role represents Idaho; in that sense, she will have a microscope on her and her comments, actions, etc. There is a higher standard there when she is serving.
But the problem isn't her religious views; it is not even her boycott of the prayer. It is her (and others) insistence that it is okay and proper for their to be Christian prayer that takes place, but no other prayers. That in other contexts we need to have exemptions carved into all sorts of legislation and policy for religious freedom, but in other contexts that religious freedom only means her religion. The LDS legislator from eastern Idaho perfectly pointed out her (and others') hypocrisy on this issue.
In this case these Christian legislators feel embolded to act the way they do because they are a majority. Pretend that in 20 years Muslims become a majority in Idaho and act the very same way: start each session with an Islamic prayer, and then protest and act like babies if the minority Christians want their prayer heard. Now, of course some of you in here would be absolutely livid over this.
This is a very polarizing topic because of the various perspectives and deeply entrenched defensive positions we have been digging as a culture for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boisefan88
In this case these Christian legislators feel embolded to act the way they do because they are a majority. Pretend that in 20 years Muslims become a majority in Idaho and act the very same way: start each session with an Islamic prayer, and then protest and act like babies if the minority Christians want their prayer heard. Now, of course some of you in here would be absolutely livid over this.
Perspective. Have some.
All majorities are emboldened because they are the majority. That exists in all facets of human interaction. Your transparent straw man argument aside, it is a common tradition for prayers to be held all over because it has been part of our country since it was founded. What she did was clearly over the line and is indicative of someone who is poorly educated and/or poorly equipped to properly address such topics. But I would argue this goes much deeper than snide commentary and trolling. It is, for a lot of us, very personal and not something to be taken with such frivolity.
That's pretty ironic that you're asking for respect in defense of someone who said another religion was a false religion. If it's "very personal," then deal with it. That's your problem, not ours. There's a reason we have separation of church and state, and we don't live in a sharia law nation. Her views about her religion vis a vis the Constitution are clearly wrong. Unequivocally.
Anyway. The point of this topic is not to debate religion. It's to show the tenor and degree of religious tolerance in Idaho, at least among the legislature. Prospective Idahoans might also get a glimpse at the furor of some of Idaho's resident religious warriors, too, here in this thread.
This, like everything else has become a "liberal vs. conservative" argument. Going back to the original post, I still don't think exercising the right not to attend doesn't make them "grade A whack jobs". That might have set the tone for the discussion.
Exercising the right not to attend doesn't make them Grade A whackjobs. That's not even what I said.
Calling for religious tolerance in some policy circumstances (when it befits their point of view), and then freaking out about another religion's desire to read the opening prayer, and further, calling the other religion a false religion, certainly does qualify as Grade A whackjob.
Going even further, saying that the Constitution is a Christian document and the US is a Christian nation, which is clearly wrong, qualifies one as a whack job.
It's getting rather obvious that some of your attempts to inflame this discussion, obfuscate it into something political, is merely a trolling attempt to get the thread closed.
That's pretty ironic that you're asking for respect in defense of someone who said another religion was a false religion.
I was pretty clear I was not defending either what she said nor the way she said it. If you're incapable of reading something so clearly stated, then there is no common ground to be established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalsLOL
If it's "very personal," then deal with it. That's your problem, not ours.
Instead of discussion, you seem to prefer the more blunt and less adult variation on a common theme these days. If you truly wanted to have a thoughtful conversation, I submit your wording would be less confrontational. But clearly that is not your intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalsLOL
There's a reason we have separation of church and state, and we don't live in a sharia law nation. Her views about her religion vis a vis the Constitution are clearly wrong. Unequivocally.
Her views are her views. We live in a nation that protects people's rights to have their own views. Even one as aggressively intolerant as yourself when someone dares to challenge your position. The issue here is the manor in which she projected her views as a public figure and as a consequence outlined her sophomoric understanding of such an intricate topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalsLOL
Anyway. The point of this topic is not to debate religion. It's to show the tenor and degree of religious tolerance in Idaho, at least among the legislature. Prospective Idahoans might also get a glimpse at the furor of some of Idaho's resident religious warriors, too, here in this thread.
I haven't debated religion or religious freedom here. My carefully worded response was related to the centuries-old traditions we have in this country since its founding. The only "furor" I'm detecting is coming from the typical intolerant tolerance police, complete with clever adjective-laden blogger speak. I've not been overtly hostile in my response, nor have I defended her actions. I merely, and rightfully, have defended her right to have an opinion, and would do the same for you. The lack of tolerance in Idaho is not limited to Idaho, and ironically, the intolerance here seems to be coming from those who shout the loudest about a lack of tolerance.
I'll not return to this topic to continue to feed what is clearly a devolved thread. Enjoy this beautiful day that I choose to believe is a gift from God. Others can believe what they want, and I find no fault with that. Just recognize that challenging my right to believe as I do also cancels your right to believe as you do.
I was pretty clear I was not defending either what she said nor the way she said it. If you're incapable of reading something so clearly stated, then there is no common ground to be established.
And yet, ultimately, you clearly put yourself on her "side" of the position when you chide the other poster to show some "respect" with regard to an issue you yourself say you take "very personal."
Hence the irony. You could have said, simply, "this legislator was wrong in how she expressed her views on religion" and been done with it.
I suspect you're simply trying to get this thread closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiden_is
Instead of discussion, you seem to prefer the more blunt and less adult variation on a common theme these days. If you truly wanted to have a thoughtful conversation, I submit your wording would be less confrontational. But clearly that is not your intention.
What's the point of discussion or nuance here? There's really not a lot of middle ground between, on one hand, saying "we want religious freedom" in this and that policy, and then saying other religions are "false religions."
Any further discussion on this issue takes it out of the realm of acceptable discussion in this forum. You want more discussion, open a new thread in the Politics forum and link it here. Otherwise, we're operating in a very limited scope, which is... here are examples of the Idaho legislature's views on religious freedom. That's it. I'm the thread starter, so I know. We are able to discuss other seemingly political topics here by making sure they're explicitly about Idaho's position on such issues, politically or culturally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiden_is
Her views are her views. We live in a nation that protects people's rights to have their own views. Even one as aggressively intolerant as yourself when someone dares to challenge your position. The issue here is the manor in which she projected her views as a public figure and as a consequence outlined her sophomoric understanding of such an intricate topic.
Exactly. Tell me where I said otherwise.
As an public elected official, she's held to a much higher standard and under a much more vivid microscope. That should be obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiden_is
I haven't debated religion or religious freedom here. My carefully worded response was related to the centuries-old traditions we have in this country since its founding. The only "furor" I'm detecting is coming from the typical intolerant tolerance police, complete with clever adjective-laden blogger speak. I've not been overtly hostile in my response, nor have I defended her actions. I merely, and rightfully, have defended her right to have an opinion, and would do the same for you. The lack of tolerance in Idaho is not limited to Idaho, and ironically, the intolerance here seems to be coming from those who shout the loudest about a lack of tolerance.
Lack of tolerance in calling her out as a hypocrite and dummy on the Constitution? I never said anything about Christians or religion at all. You're creating a ridiculously obvious strawman where there is none.
Unless you're saying I'm being intolerant of legislators who are hypocrites, incorrect on their views of history and the Constitution, and are spiteful in their own tolerance. Then sure, I support I am intolerant of dumb opinions that come from dumb politicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiden_is
I'll not return to this topic to continue to feed what is clearly a devolved thread. Enjoy this beautiful day that I choose to believe is a gift from God. Others can believe what they want, and I find no fault with that. Just recognize that challenging my right to believe as I do also cancels your right to believe as you do.
Exercising the right not to attend doesn't make them Grade A whackjobs. That's not even what I said.
Calling for religious tolerance in some policy circumstances (when it befits their point of view), and then freaking out about another religion's desire to read the opening prayer, and further, calling the other religion a false religion, certainly does qualify as Grade A whackjob.
Going even further, saying that the Constitution is a Christian document and the US is a Christian nation, which is clearly wrong, qualifies one as a whack job.
It's getting rather obvious that some of your attempts to inflame this discussion, obfuscate it into something political, is merely a trolling attempt to get the thread closed.
You are coming across as the whack job as you are quite incorrect. I suggest you study American history. The founding fathers based the Constitution on Judeo Christian values, that is indisputable fact, unless, of course, that fact does not suit your needs.
BTW, have you ever actually read the Constitution? Do you know the major driving motivation(s) for the exodus from England to North America and the establishment of the United States?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
