The simple fact is that freedom of religion doesn’t mean much if it protects only those beliefs that the government, or the general populace, decides it likes. It is first and foremost unpopular beliefs that need the protections afforded by the First Amendment and international human rights treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If this were about Human Sacrifice, would Eric Rassbach be as willing to defend that unpopular belief, as well? Most religions do evolve over time. Albeit there remain inconsistencies and deliberate acts of cruelty. To me, this is not "freedom of religion" it is freedom from the laws that protect animals. If a man can kill his goat, why can't he choose to heal his child with prayer? Kill a goat for roasting, rock on carnivore. Kill a goat for religious purposes... OMFGWTF STOP THAT, THAT'S WRONG! If this were about Human Sacrifice, would Eric Rassbach be as willing to defend that unpopular belief, as well?Oh come on, that's a silly argument to make. No one is talking about excusing murdering humans on religious grounds, no one is going to court to argue for that right. You're trying to bait someone into admitting "Freedom of religion is more important that the right not to be murdered". Not only is it a ludicrous position, it's not even remotely hinted at in the clip or the article. I've seen in detail how a slaughterhouse works. My money is on the ... Oh come on, that's a silly argument to make. No one is talking about excusing murdering humans on religious grounds, no one is going to court to argue for thatYou're right, Spiritualmonkey. Silly me. I stand corrected. Murdering humans is done on secular grounds, like the Roe v. Wade Constitutional right to privacy that's not mentioned in the Constitution and, the Nazi Nuremberg Laws precedent that excused the killing of 6 million Jews because they were not persons. Steve Savage "King of the Beasts" http://sskotb.blogspot.com/ Steve Savage asks, "If this were about Human Sacrifice, would Eric Rassbach be as willing to defend that unpopular belief, as well? " Rassbach says specifically, "The Court did not decide whether Mr. Merced’s beliefs were right or wrong, orthodox or unorthodox. It simply held that as long as he is not endangering public health or safety, the government had to leave those beliefs up to him and his gods." If human sacrifice is considered 'endangering public safety', then it appears that Rassbach would not defend it. If human sacrifice is considered 'endangering public safety', then it appears that Rassbach would not defend it."Rassbach defends the free public expression of all religious traditions, including Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and many others." [/b] I must confess that I don't know Rassbach at all, as you seem to, by your above quote. I hesitate to guess as to what he would or would not defend by projecting my own conception of what it "appears" he would or would not do, should it come to defending the religious traditions of[/b] chopping off hands of thieves, stoning of adulterers, female genital circumcision, etc. |
View the Top Clips from August 9, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||||
