Group items tagged

People shouldn't be using religion as an excuse not to wear a mask unless they prove that their religion does, in fact, say no masks.

Wearing masks not only helps you but others around you. It shouldn't be up to your religion to keep others safe. This is a world wide pandemic, why is wearing a mask that big of a deal. Including when it comes to the conversation of religion.

I think people should just wear masks for the safety of them and others, I get it sucks, but it would suck more if someone was dying because you didn't wear your mask, or even worse if you were dying because you didn't wear it.

This is totally great. I think it made a great comparison between racism and being against gay marriage. I highly recommend watching this.

Religion is based off of your own personal faith and beliefs and with so many different versions and beliefs you can't let one person say what it means and stereotype that religion. You also have to consider the fact that things change with time, people evolve and so do thoughts. Like Snider showed in the video, we once thought that racism was right and accepting other nationalities was against their religion.

As I have said before, religion should have no influence when it comes to government policy. As for the bible, I could point out many things wrong with the bible, and the idea that Christianity not supporting gay relationships. I will not, simply out of the urge as to not ruin peoples views on religion. What I will say, is that the bible should also have no say on our government as well. Religion should, and is, also limited in the US, contrary to popular belief. Religion has been limited to 1st, no human sacrifice. (We don't need them crazy beheading Aztec's coming in and just start slicing peoples heads off right?) Second, separation of church and state. That right there means religion is not allowed to say, "You can't be gay, ban gay marriage." (And oddly, it still managed to happen.) I'm really looking forward to the supreme courts ruling on this, as long as they decide to take the case.

As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.

I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks

I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.

" "

I think it's awful that these people aren't able to express openly what religion they are and get put in jail when they do.

They shouldn't of put him to jail for 3 years. I know they don't have the freedom to express their religions if they aren't the main religions but 3 years is way to long for something so small.

A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!

Thinning the gene pool is a bad thing. Genes that don't get passed are lost, and it could have devastating effects. Also I never said they don't contribute through adopting. I said that in the eyes of evolution ANYONE who fails to pass on genes is nonexistent.

I believe Brittany said the human population, not pointing out simply the gene pool. The human population rate needs to slow down. It's increasing at a ridiculous rate and with adoptions instead of births it will decrease slightly. However, more people need to understand that everyone has a right as an individual and if a man-man or woman-woman couple wants to get married or adopt children or have their own, I say let them.

Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment

First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ

ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.

I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D

my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.

In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you

I'm not sure if we as a society, are prepared for such a big idea to be handled. The Justices are going to, if they take up the case, make some major leaps and bounds for the community, or pretty much end same sex marriage. If the court does take up the case, I am going to want to follow it extremely closely.

I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments (lots of good information in many posts and "food for thought"). Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/yUIP3

In all reality, gay marriage being a possibility to be legalized, is very interesting. Our constitutional founders, from what many anti-gay's claim, say that the founders were all religious, and did not support gay marriage. The problem with that is the constitutional wording, freedom of religion. Another issue is separation of church and state, this the facts Mr. Pregon gave are interesting, but can we say the religion is a reason as to why gay marriage should/should not be legal? Something funny, although probably irrelevant, is the idea of a church for the gay community to worship as they please, and is accepting of gay marriage. Form some sort of religion out of this, and by that, the gay community can simply do as they please, and get married as they want just by the basis of our constitution. I don't know why, but that thought just came to mind.

Just as the city of Charlotte, N.C., gears up to host the Democratic National Convention, an atheist group is mounting a billboard campaign attacking the religious faiths of President Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

I find it rather hypocritical of the Christian Pastor to say it's never appropriate to insult another person when Christian ad campaigns quite frequently do just that. Objectively, this ad campaign is no more offensive than many campaigns launched by fundamentalist Christians. I fully agree with Silverman's quote, "We are not a Christian nation; we have never been a Christian nation and we never will be," although I would change it to say that we are not a religious nation. Religion needs to be taken out of political discussions, and people who try to bring it into politics need to wake up and realize that Church and State are separated and they can't force their beliefs onto other people.

Had I been in Cullinan's position, I would have handled the request the same way he did because, morally, I believe it is wrong to advertise something that is expected to, and probably intended to, offend a group of people based on their religious beliefs. However, freedom is speech IS a huge component in our society. Whether we like to think it is or not, our government can't be, and isn't, based purely on morals.

"The change came because Kaylee Cole and her mother Christy had finally had enough, and decided to take on the school system by filing a lawsuit alleging there is systematic official promotion of religion at Webster Parish schools in violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution."

The school forcing religion among the students goes against the first Amendment, we as citizens of the U.S. have a freedom of religion and it is against the law for public schools to force a religion on anyone.

Cole had a great offense when her school was promoting to pray. Which was something she did not please. To the fact that the school she attended was "public".

This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.

I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.

Well said Jazmine.

In May, the Lenoir City High School faculty was threatened with a criminal investigation for publishing a yearbook story titled, "It's OK To Be Gay."

^ Michaela it has to do with gay bullying, i believe it is relevant.

Michaela, homosexuality is a part of almost every high school. GSA, (gay straight alliance) a club at our school. That alone means it has to do with school. A yearbook article on that would be just as relevant on a article about chess club, or mock trial, or a sport. If you honestly, and truly disagree with me, then how is it not as important as any of those things?

"Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. Oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CO Civil Rightswill be heard Tuesday. "

To clarify, this article published in USToday was an editorial written BY the baker in this case to give his side. Also a good video with both sides explaining their views https://goo.gl/73fXsW Although I didn't find an article written by the couple, here is another NYTimes story which has some of the legal issues explained from their side. https://goo.gl/sAacw4

this is stupid it should not made who is getting married to who if they want a cake they should get one

In the five months since Jan Morgan banned Muslims from her gun range in Hot Springs, Ark., business has boomed and predictions of a lawsuit brought by federal civil rights enforcers have so far proved inaccurate.

That's really wrong that they ban people based on their religion. There is millions of Muslims around the world and ban their freedom because of something someone else did is wrong!!

I understand that she wants to keep potential terrorists out of her gun range. But as long as they are legal American citizens, they have a right to be able to join a private gun club. She is jumping to conclusions by assuming that every Muslim is a terrorist, by kicking out people of different religions such as Hinduism, and by someone being "brown" in color.

" "the Texas bill would've been an obviously unconstitutional establishment of religion, something prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Now, however, it comes under the disturbing category of 'Who knows?'""

Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb comments on a discrimination case in which the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center fired a Customer Service Representative, Sakile S. Chenzira, for refusing to get a seasonal flu vaccine, in contravention of hospital policy.

the government shuld not have to provide free birth control for women if their not going to use methods of not getting pregnant

I think this page will help you boys understand a little more about what birth control actually is: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill Personally, I think that it should be covered by insurance. Besides being a popular contraceptive, it control many different hormones in a woman's body. It's used to cure things like ovarian cysts, and irregular periods. It can relieve those pesky cramps that you get on your period, or just at random points of the month. It will clear your acne, and even help prevent cancers. And, the hormones being consumed by taking the pill, can balance our emotions, possibly making us more tolerance of ignorance towards women's health. The church aspect of this story is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Them refusing to cover a product that would help their employees be healthier, prettier, nicer, and more likely to remain cancer free, is unreasonable. Just because the typical use is frowned upon by their religions, doesn't mean it's right to make their employees spend their hard earned money on measures to maintain a healthy body, that could be covered by their companies insurance.

I don't see why taking measures to prevent a pregnancy is so bad. People are always saying that teenagers are getting pregnant at a young age when the truth is, maybe these girls can't afford it. No, they should not be having sex so young but sometimes you have to face the fact that girls are having sex at a young age and instead of turning a blind eye, they should take measures to prevent the pregnancy from happening. Just like Kirsten said, it does more than just preventing pregnancies. Some girls need it and can't afford it.

(CNN) -- The Boy Scouts of America is considering changing its longstanding policy against allowing openly gay members, according to a release from the organization. The organization, which has 2.7 million members, is "potentially discussing" doing away with its policy after months of nationwide protest, including hundreds of angry Eagle scouts renouncing their hard-earned awards and mailing back their red-white-and-blue medals.

re:Grayson -- an Iowan Eagle Scout named Zack Wahls disagrees with you. The second video linked from CNN gives both sides a chance to respond to the BSA's recent dilemma. http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/opinion/wahls-gays-scouting/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

I'm not saying I'm against gays and stuff but I just wouldnt feel right if I knew that there where homosexuals in a group with my child I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that.

"Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel"

It is important for schools to want and try to create a safe and learning environment for their students, and different students had different beliefs and ideas based on their own color and race.

I think that the school taking away this could of had an affect on how the kids reacted. If you think about it when someone tells you not to do something you have a slight urge to go against what they are saying. These kids probably wanted to do the same thing, maybe just because they wanted to get under their skin, not because they were standing up for what they believe in.

"Late last month, she tweeted a photo of her outfit, and the post circulated through Saudi Arabia, drawing death threats and demands to imprison or even execute the woman. On Monday, police in the country's capital of Riyadh said they had arrested the woman"

I know it is their culture but the woman should get freedom, shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace, you should be able to do/wear what you please.

It is so crazy how around the world women are held to higher or even lower expectations when it comes to, education, clothing, physically beauty and intelligence. How is it even possible to imagine a world where the clothes you wear lands you into jail? There is justice that needs to be served her to have an innocent women in jail. There has to be something that is done for the world when it comes to woman suffrage. The hard part isn't going through with a plan to do that, the hardest part is finding a plan-- to do just that.