Religious Freedom?? We need a new term.

[cbayer]

Once again, we let them control the language. Let's take it back and start calling it what it is.

I am specifically talking about the legislation that appears to be sweeping this country under the banner of "religious liberty".

7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Religious privilege
	3 (43%)
	Religious indulgence
	0 (0%)
	Religious profligacy
	0 (0%)
	Religious unrestraint
	0 (0%)
	Religious recklessness
	0 (0%)
	Religious free rein
	0 (0%)
	Religious rampancy
	0 (0%)
	Religious discrimination
	1 (14%)
	Other
	3 (43%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Trillo]

1. religious hatred

nt

[leftofcool]

2. I second this one!

[rock]

3. Well, I was gonna say "religious bullying"

But yours is perfectly acceptable!

[stone space]

49. "Religious bullying" is good. (nt)

[MADem]

4. I'm not a fan of lumping. Call people assholes if they are assholes, and call people

nice folks if they're nice to others. What people believe, or don't believe, is immaterial.

Judge people on how they BEHAVE, not what they believe (or not).

[edhopper]

5. People BEHAVE

based on what they believe.

To not address hate filled beliefs, like LGBT people don't deserve equal treatment, will only prolong such behavior.

Do you think it was fine that the politicians in Indiana believed that Christians should not have to serve Gay people, but only address it after such laws were passed?

What people believe is very material.

[MADem]

14. Huh? People at the Unitarian Universalist church "believe" but they don't "hate."

I don't agree that we should lump all "believing" people together any more than we should lump all "non-believing" people together. And people who do that kind of thing might be regarded as intolerant.

My response was generic, not in reference to events in Indiana.

I will say I find a lot of these threads that start out with a vague "Well, you oughta know what I'm talking about, so I won't bother to be specific about my reference" conversations pointless.

Who, posting on this board and not a troll, believes that LGBT people aren't entitled to equality in every sense of the word? Who, posting on this board and not a troll, believes that it is "OK" for people to refuse service to anyone based solely on their orientation, race, color, creed or lack of same?

I mean, really. Here's what I believe--people shouldn't be assholes to other people. Treat people as you'd like to be treated.

It's pretty simple.

[edhopper]

20. Okay

I don't think we were talking about the same thing.
Crossed wires.

[safeinOhio]

23. A UU might say

Ever individual has the right to a free, independent search for the truth.

[MADem]

35. I don't presume to speak for them but I had a cousin who was active in that church and

she was the most wonderful, gracious, accepting and inclusive woman you would have ever wanted to meet. Her friends from that church, who came from all walks of life, and varied circumstances and personal histories, had similar attitudes.

[safeinOhio]

37. It's one of our 7 beliefs.

Great group. Every individual church is a little different than the other.

[MADem]

38. Well, they came out in droves for my cousin's funeral, from all walks of life, all circumstances,

rich poor, rainbow coalition in every sense of the term...it was like the UN up in there. And they were all nice folks, too. I understood why she liked them and was close to them.

[cbayer]

8. I'm just pointing out that the right once again took the language.

Who doesn't like liberty? Unfortunately that is not what these laws are about.

I am specifically talking about the legislation that appears to be sweeping this country under the banner of "religious liberty".

So this is all about behavior.

[MADem]

10. Your OP didn't include that reference point--it appeared generic, so I took it that way.

That said, if people are behaving like asses, call them out on it.

[cbayer]

13. I will edit to make it clearer. Thanks..

[MADem]

15. When "religious liberty" encompasses "hate" it's a no-go. IMO, anyway. nt

[cbayer]

16. Exactly. They made it a phrase that everyone could love,

while it really is just a cloak for bigotry.

[No Vested Interest]

36. Sounds like Luntz at work again. nt

[MADem]

39. "Words that matter" from a "turd that blathers!" nt

[No Vested Interest]

45. Right on. nt

[meow2u3]

6. One more: religious tyranny

Given the far right's marked tendency to use Orwellian terminology to mask their evil legislation, we ought to be saying, "When the GOP/teabaggers say 'religous freedom', they really mean 'religious tyranny.' Period."

[LiberalAndProud]

9. ^This.

And if you aren't on their particular belief bandwagon, beware. Because your religion isn't what they're protecting. They're protecting their right to impose their belief system on others and that's infuriating.

[meow2u3]

12. That's the definition of religous tyranny to me

The religous right is no better than ISIS in the Middle East in that they both want to use their twisted version of religion to bludgeon us into submission--or death.

They won't rest until the Constitution of the United States is destroyed and one of them becomes King--literally!

[LiberalAndProud]

21. King? High priest.

Arbiter of all that is holy.

[cbayer]

22. It won't rest unless we stand up to them.

They have a base but so do we.

I do not believe they will win.

[PassingFair]

65. It looks like corporate pressure will win this for us.

Strange but true.

Boycotts have sent Pence into blathering excuses.

Walmart is going against a similar law being argued in Arkansas.

Strange Brew!

[cbayer]

66. I am pleased to see the overwhelming response to this and love to

see Pence crawfishing.

Silver linings.

[Leontius]

67. Each side is seeking the right to impose their belief system on others.

[LiberalAndProud]

68. Yes.

If we're talking about things like reproductive choice for women and equal rights for all under the law, I do want to impose that on others.

However, arguing a point of view and voicing arguments with ancient dogma that permeates our society and insinuates itself into our laws isn't imposing anything on anybody. If you don't care to have those conversations, it seems they're mostly easy to avoid.

[cbayer]

11. I like this one. I know we are not going to settle on a term, but I hope we

will start using different terms than they are using.

[Cartoonist]

7. Simply: Religion

No adjectives or explanations needed.

[cbayer]

17. So instead of calling these bills "Religious Freedom Restoration Act",

we will call them "Religion Act".

That really doesn't make the point I was going for, but suit yourself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Religious false justification?

[cbayer]

19. Maybe, religious false justification for hate.

[LostOne4Ever]

24. Im going with Privilege

[font size=4]They want the privilege to not have to follow discrimination laws.[/font]

[cbayer]

25. I like that as well because it can be applied to other areas besides these laws.

I hate to see them getting away with calling it freedom when what it does is take freedom away from others.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I kind of like "religious privilege"

if I can't have "religious assholery."

[guillaumeb]

27. establishing a theocracy

it was the goal of the Puritans and the US has always had a conflict between the would be theocrats and the enlightenment ideals of the founders of the US republic.

Cotton Mather vs. Thomas Jefferson.

[cbayer]

28. We need to get back to the enlightenment ideals of our founders.

We can not let them get any further, imo.

[guillaumeb]

32. but this, in my opinion, is the essential conflict

from 1620 or so to the present. The conflict between theocrats and enlightenment values.

And this is not to say that religion is in opposition to science, but that some religious people hide from science by pretending that the Bible cannot be reconciled with science.

Islam had the same conflict between science and theology.

Why it happens is beyond me, unless severe economic stress causes people to retreat to what they feel were simpler and better times and ways of thinking.

[cbayer]

34. I think there is a yearning for simpler, better days.

You know, the ones where everyone was white, straight and christian, lol.

This legislator from AZ who made the idiotic statements about passing a law that said everyone had to go to church talked precisely about that. She wants to go back to the 50's.

Obama had it right when he talked about people clinging to their guns and bibles when they felt scared.

[onecaliberal]

29. It's hate, nothing more and nothing less.

[Half-Century Man]

30. I was going with "Dogmatic Demagoguery" (it rolls off the tongue)

The part I find particularly atrocious is that a law designed to protect important traditional First Nations Religious/Cultural lands and rituals; is being used by members of the overwhelming religious majority to justify their xenophobia and hatred.

Is this anything less than state sanctioned religious recruitment through the use of stigmatization and bulling?

[cbayer]

31. I like that! The Dogmatic Demagoguery Act. That says it all.

The original bill had serious unintended consequences and I don't think it was thought through well at all.

Not that the horse is out of the barn, we are going to have a hard time getting it back in.

[Half-Century Man]

44. Simplest solution, shoot the horse drag it back in.

Declare all religions a matter of personal importance only.

Declare all religious beliefs/opinions to be inadmissible as justification for any form of legislation, An individual may be inspired by their personal religious beliefs, but must be able to articulate pro/con arguments without religious references other than historical.

Complete and utter separation of church and state.

A single set of strict regulations be set for religious schools.

Religion may not be cited for excuse to skip citizen obligations or public schools.

Faith based arguments may not be used in public discussions of scientific topics.

[okasha]

33. Dominionism.

And slap a HazMat label on it.

[hrmjustin]

40. I think we need to call it Bullshit.

[Trillo]

43. Don't step in the Bullshit!

[pinto]

41. Reaffirm the First Amendment Act (Reaffirm the First)

No State shall impose, permit or legislate personal discrimination of any citizen in any and all public and state activities based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity or religious preference.

No State shall impose, permit or legislate religious standards in their civil code based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity or religious preference.

No State shall impose, deny, support or legislate the establishment and practice of any religion.

All States will uphold US Constitutional standards as regards the individual rights of all Americans, irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity or religious preference.

[Yorktown]

42. No need for a new term. The word 'superstition' already exists.

And is a fairly accurate description of all these 'spiritual' woowoos.

[cbayer]

46. This is not about replacing the word religion, it's about replacing the phrase

"religious freedom" which is being used by the religious right to describe their hate laws.

I'm not sure the "superstition freedom" really furthers the cause.

[Yorktown]

50. IMHO, superstition freedom exactly depicts 'religious freedom'

And explains why they should be curtailed.

The 'liberty' of muslims to teach their kids all Jews will be hunted down on Judgment Day is hate speech.

The'liberty' of Christians to teach their kids all non-believers will go to Hell is hate speech.

I'm not very hot for hate speech.

[cbayer]

51. Are you making the case that free speech should be curtailed?

Are you really suggesting that what parents teach their children should be regulated?

That is a very slippery slope.

[Yorktown]

52. Freedom stops when you threaten others. Simple.

I am not free to threaten to kill you, your grandmother and your canary bird.

Those would be death threats which should give you a right to get me convicted.

It is not a slippery slope to say parts of the religious discourse are hate speech.

Which should be curtailed.

[cbayer]

53. I'm not sure you answered my question.

Are you suggesting that what parents say to their children be regulated? Who is it that will make the determination as to whether it constitutes a threat or not?

Some people felt that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were hate speech. It's a very slippery slope.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Telling children that non-believers are going to hell is threatening nobody

Do you want to restrict what parents can tell their children?

[phil89]

60. It's still abusive and sick

To tell kids things like that. It's certaimly manipulative and an attempt to force people to believe a certain way by threatening hell. Of course they avoid responsibility by claiming its "God" who decides.

[Starboard Tack]

61. I agree. Hopefully, these children will eventually think for themselves

Meanwhile, better education is preferable to abolishing freedom of speech.

[hrmjustin]

58. How should religious freedom be curtailed?

[stone space]

47. I like the term that MLK used: "Religious bigotry".

Or just plain "bigotry".

[cbayer]

48. That works and is a much better description than "freedom"

[AZ Mike]

55. Religious fuckery

The end.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. I chose "Religious Discrimination" at first, but that smacked of martyrdom, so I changed my vote

to "Religious Privilege". The word "privilege" has a negative connotation in the ears of the so-called religiously humble (and the loudest among them are anything but humble).

This term is more suitable for the bigoted bills being passes as "religious freedom".

[DetlefK]

57. Religious entitlement.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. No. Let's keep it like it is. It's perfect, just like that.

Because under religion that's exactly what freedom/liberty looks like.

[Maedhros]

62. Religious Exceptionalism?

Basically, their idea that because they are Christian they are somehow superior to others and don't have to follow rules they don't like?

[cbayer]

63. I think they might eat that up, lol.

[Jamaal510]

64. Religion Misusage. nt