Yes, in a 21st century secular America where Americans are rapidly becoming less Christian and more secular every day.
Your God has no power over me as I don’t even acknowledge its existence. And no I would not argue with a non-existent invisible being.
Just obey the laws of the locality that you live in and don’t be intolerant, unjust or discriminatory to anyone. You are free to believe whatever you want.
If I believe gender is determined at birth, and if I believe homosexuality is wrong, and if I refuse to participate in anything that goes against these beliefs, am I going to be protected under your regime?
Certainly not. If you are an EMT, a police officer, a doctor, a dentist, a school teacher, a waitress at the coffee shop, you are required to serve and treat homosexuals and transgenders no differently than heterosexuals. No bias, no intolerance, no discrimination. Your religious beliefs gives you no rights nor protections in being bigoted, intolerant or discriminatory behavior or to engage in hate speech.
If you are a Christian barber, do you check the biological sex of each person coming in for a haircut?
It’s interesting how you separate belief from behavior. I’m assuming our focus is then on behavior, correct, and you’re not trying to dictate beliefs?
Do you have a good working definition of hate speech?
Yes, a person actions and words do matter. If you have a job to do a service for the general public, then you must do that job regardless of whatever your beliefs are.
yes, the bible.
You mean like these :
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Philippians 4:8
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. Ephesians 4:29
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31
But seriously, do you have a decent definition that you use?
The problem I have is “hate” seems like an emotion or a belief, not an objective behavior. Also, aren’t there things we’re supposed to “hate” in some sense (injustice, oppression, etc.) so how can we tell? Is it based on negotiated social norms, like (I believe your view is) morality itself?
The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of God per se. It refers to “in the year of our Lord” in the closing but that is a standard idiom of the era when writing a date on a document. It is not necessarily an explicit statement of deity. Obviously, it is a reference to Jesus and the cultural standard for specifying the year.
I’m glad @Patrick likes to confirm scripture with his posts, rather than what he thinks he is doing with what are ad populum arguments against the existence of God.
The phrase “Year of our Lord” is not part of the US Constitution approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was added to the document sometime after the meeting.
Seidel’s article, “Dating God: What Is ‘Year of Our Lord’ Doing in the U.S. Constitution?” examines the legal and historical significance of the lordly date by piecing together how exactly it was added to the parchment during the Constitutional Convention, who added it, and what significance it may have had for the delegates and scribe. The article also traces the origins of the argument that “Year of our Lord” is consequential to a preacher writing 50 years after the Constitution was drafted.
The article is an interesting blend of history, law and detective work. Seidel examines the evolution of the various drafts of the Constitution, pointing out that that pious date appeared on none. There are other dates within the Constitution itself, but none contains religious language.
Seidel also explains that that date is not actually part of the Constitution. The legal document ends after Article VII, the attestation clause, to which the date was added. As Seidel explained it, “When you sign a contract, that signature is attesting to your consent — it is not part of the terms of the contract. The signatures and dates are not part of the Constitution itself.”
“The bottom line is that this curious little appendage has no legal significance and it’s unlikely the Founders even knew it was there,” said Seidel. “The first time any one argued that it had religious significance was a preacher writing nearly 50 years after the Constitutional Convention,” he added.
You just said that in your ‘tolerant’ vision for America, hate speech is not tolerated. And you think the Bible is hate speech.
Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that you are advocating that the Bible be outlawed? That Christians be banned from talking about their faith publicly? This is the reality of atheist secular humanist ‘tolerance’. It’s intolerance.
I am advocating for the charging of hate speech when any Christian quotes Bible verses for the purpose of harming, disparaging, or harassing others. You can’t hide behind bible verses that say to stone or kill homosexuals under freedom of religious expressions. It is hate speech. Bible verse can’t be used as a protected weapon of hate speech under the guise of religious freedom or free speech.
Should it be illegal for me to tell you, either to your face or in writing, that you will unfortunately go to eternal hell, if you refuse to accept Jesus Christ as savior? Should it be illegal to say that homosexuality is a sin?
It is a crime to harsh people. So yes, if you told me that I or any member of my family were destined to go to an eternal hell for not believing that a man executed in Palestine 2000 years ago was a God, I would consider you a threat to me and my family. I would go to law enforcement with a complaint against you. The court may find that you are just a delusional religious nut, and put in place a restraining order in order to prevent further harassment. If it was found that you were going to take harmful actions against people based on your delusional fanaticism, incarceration would be warranted. The same goes against homosexuals, transgender, and children. Realize in a secular society, sin has no legal standing. Sin is a religious concept that has no force of law, no moral standing, nor ethical basis.
Thanks for openly admitting that this is the goal of your secular humanism. To outlaw free speech entirely (and to outlaw the sharing of the Gospel). I would be going to prison in your country.
No, as an American I will fight for your religious freedom. But you can’t have freedom of religion unless you first have freedom FROM religion. You have the right to practice your religion as you want but you have no freedom to impose your beliefs on anyone including children. Nor do anyone have the freedom to harsh or harm anyone based on those beliefs.