What do we need to fear with the new MN Legislature

[infidel]

I have cited numerous examples where the state has forced churches to do provide the venue OR services against their will. You don't believe it can happen, even though I provided evidence it has.

No, you have not. No CHURCH has been forced. Church OWNED property has, but it was PUBLIC USE property, which falls under the same rules as any other business property.

Now, go find an actual CHURCH that was forced to require it's clergy to marry someone they didn't want to, in the actual house of worship, then come on back and post the link.

Until then, well, keep hat'n on those "klingons" bro.....

Just in case you lost track.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hurch.html

[Jeff Bergquist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hurch.html

Um, how is that relevant to the United States? Should we be worried that our gun laws are instantly going to reflect theirs as well????? I mean, I give you an A for effort, but an F on content....again.

It does provide context for the fears infidel professes. It's not that far a stretch to assume that what transpires in Europe can influence legal thought here. But IMO Most European countries don't have the legal restrictions on state control of the churches that the US does so it wouldn't be a parallel situation.

And in fairness to someone I disagree with, the Klingon quote IMO was used out of context, unless you really didn't know what was meant by it.

[goalie]

Dude you were pawned. Deal with it. See above. You continue to lie and say it won't happen or cant happen. I would give you a shovel, but your are doing just fine digging.

You didn't answer the question: When are OUR gun laws going to be a mirror reflection of THEIRS? If they are not, why not? Also, if they are not, why would one make the assumption that laws regarding religious freedom would be any different?

You were asked go give an example, you still have not. What you did was analogous to someone worried about gun control in the US post Heller pointing at the UK's draconian restrictions, ignoring their lack of a constitution similar to ours, and running around like chicken-little yelling "the sky is falling."

[White Horseradish]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hurch.html

Denmark? Of all places, you had to pick Denmark...

The Church of Denmark or Danish National Church, formally known in English as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark, is the state church and largest denomination in Denmark and Greenland. Since the Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein, the church has been Evangelical Lutheran and Denmark's state church with the Danish monarch as its supreme authority. The 1848 Constitution of Denmark designated the church "the Danish people's church".[2] The church is financially supported by the state, but membership is voluntary.[3][4] The reigning monarch is the supreme authority, but not the head, of the Church,[5] with the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, currently Manu Sareen, as the highest administrative authority of the Church. The Danish parliament, Folketinget, is the supreme legislative authority for the church.

It's a STATE CHURCH, with a MONARCH as it's supreme authority, and a parliament that is CONSTITUTIONALLY the legislative authority for the church. This is about as far from the situation in US as you can get. Do you understand the concept of "apples and oranges"?

[Heffay]

It's amazing. All the times he complained about examples that don't apply, and here he is rapid-firing them out like a hypocritical machine gun.

Bratatatatatat! Take that, consistency!

[goaliemn]

It's a STATE CHURCH, with a MONARCH as it's supreme authority, and a parliament that is CONSTITUTIONALLY the legislative authority for the church. This is about as far from the situation in US as you can get. Do you understand the concept of "apples and oranges"?

I'm also guessing, as a result of the fact its a STATE CHURCH they don't have a 1st amendment separating them..

Churches in the US currently discriminate over who they will marry on a regular basis, yet I don't see lawsuits flying.. I don't see lawsuits flying if they discriminate against someone else. (Most churches require you to be a member to marry there. I'd love to see a jew demand the catholic church marries them in the basilica.)

[White Horseradish]

I'm also guessing, as a result of the fact its a STATE CHURCH they don't have a 1st amendment separating them..

Precisely. Their constitution expressly joins church and state. Nothing at all like the US.

[yukonjasper]

You are all looking too far for examples. A little research on our freinds to the North will show you the incrementalism and how their Gay Rights movement has undermined the Catholic Church. The move to extreme secularism is an assault on organized religion. Granted, they don't have exactly the same government, but the examples of how legislation designed to protect a minority can be used to errode influence if only as a chilling effect to dissenting opinion has been documented.

Adding this information from a website that advocates for the Catholic Faith in Canada. There are other sources, but this should get you started.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/article/topic/homosexuality/

[Heffay]

You are all looking too far for examples. A little research on our freinds to the North will show you the incrementalism and how their Gay Rights movement has undermined the Catholic Church. The move to extreme secularism is an assault on organized religion. Granted, they don't have exactly the same government, but the examples of how legislation designed to protect a minority can be used to errode influence if only as a chilling effect to dissenting opinion has been documented.

Adding this information from a website that advocates for the Catholic Faith in Canada. There are other sources, but this should get you started.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/article/topic/homosexuality/

Not seeing it. Churches that don't want to marry gay couples can continue to not marry them. Straight people won't be forced to into gay marriages. Churches who do want to marry gay couples should be allowed to, instead of being prevented from doing so by other churches.

It's bigotry to insist that other people live by your moral code. It's insanity to insist the government enforce it. I mean, it works great when the majority of people think like you do, but when they don't, are you going to happily go with the majority then? You're supporting one policy when it goes with you, and another when it goes against you.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Jeff Bergquist]

The move to extreme secularism is an assault on organized religion.

If anything I would call it pushback. Organized religion not only thinks it's ok, but feels it's their duty to push their beliefs on those who would prefer to be left alone, but get their panties in a bunch when or if other organizations get pushy. I don't think either side should be governmentally endorsed or supported, but I find it silly when the churches act all indignant that someone else might try and do exactly what they try to do every chance they get.

[Heffay]

What's the difference between normal secularism and extreme secularism?

[Holland&Holland]

What's the difference between normal secularism and extreme secularism?

The "cool" factor of the word.

[yukonjasper]

Extreme Secularism seeks to exclude the concept of religion from the discourse. In my opinion, extreme secularism would not allow concepts concieved under religions teachings to even be a part of the the discussion. Its an active dissection of the language and the culture to remove references to Natural Law, Religious Cannon Law, Biblical Teachings etc. from the vernacular and make the concept of Moral Relativism the central theme. The removal of any absolutes based on any moral teachings run contrary to the Extreme Secularism view. Not sure you'll find a Wikipedia Page to support that but that is my opinion. .

Secularism does not seek to silence the religious voice and will allow discussion, but claims to not base its thesis on religious teaching etc. Its the silencing and attempts to discredit, marginalize, dismember, nueter or out and out delete religion that makes it extreme.

Other than that, its more secularistic in its secularocity.

[infidel]

For those who believe we have separation of church and state, see Utah Statehood and the Obamacare HHS contraceptive mandate.

[goalie]

Extreme Secularism seeks to exclude the concept of religion from the discourse. In my opinion, extreme secularism would not allow concepts concieved under religions teachings to even be a part of the the discussion. Its an active dissection of the language and the culture to remove references to Natural Law, Religious Cannon Law, Biblical Teachings etc. from the vernacular and make the concept of Moral Relativism the central theme. The removal of any absolutes based on any moral teachings run contrary to the Extreme Secularism view. Not sure you'll find a Wikipedia Page to support that but that is my opinion. .

Secularism does not seek to silence the religious voice and will allow discussion, but claims to not base its thesis on religious teaching etc. Its the silencing and attempts to discredit, marginalize, dismember, nueter or out and out delete religion that makes it extreme.

Other than that, its more secularistic in its secularocity.

That's why we have the first amendment here. Even anti-gun liberals are for that one last time I checked......

And, I hate to break this to you, but religion IS extreme. All of them. Not just the other weird ones, but yours too. They all rely on this faith thing, and faith in something without rational reason to have said faith is pretty much the definition of extreme.