Sentences with phrase «religious right they use»

If you have ever seen Shawshank Redemption you have the very «Religious» Warden of the Prison who lies, cheats, and has people murdered while he passes judgement on the Prisoners, they typical mindset of the Religious Right they use bully tactics to control people with religion while they live personal wicked lives worse than any Gay person they hate.

The harsh, narrow voices of the Religious Right used the label as they neglected justice for the poor and for people of color.

He's engaging in classic hype that the religious right uses whenever this issue comes up — claiming that we don't really need embryonic stem cells because adult stem cells are so wonderful that they can take care of everything.

Not exact matches

The companies join gay - rights and human rights groups as well as the American Civil Liberties Union in attacking the law over its broad language, which could be used by business owners to use religious objections to deny same - sex couples wedding.

The people who resisted the Civil Rights movement in the south, many of whom used religious arguments, people who classified Blacks as animals, were degraded and debased by their own actions: turning fire hoses on children, setting dogs on peaceful marchers, lynching, firebombing churches...

The Christian Right wants public money to be used for private religious education (vouchers), buildings and services to be used for private religious purposes (this article), and they want subsidies in the form of tax breaks, special exemptions of other sorts, and they even want to destroy Aid to Needy Families so they can drive people into seeking help at their private religious «missions» where you are not allowed to eat unless you are a Christian, and so on.

FOLLOW THE LAW and quit using your religious insanity as an excuse to VIOLATE MY RIGHTS!!!

State sanctioned rights must not be influenced by religious beliefs and a company which uses consumer money to donate to causes that continue to oppress and discriminate against those we «love» should be exposed.

Our friend Matt Franck is absolutely right that those of our friends who use the «no religious test» clause of the Constitution to condemn religious bigotry have got it absolutely wrong.

A variety of religious and pseudo-religious groups have claimed a right to use drugs.

And unless they belong to a religious community, they have as much right as anyone else to use their personal income as they see fit, including the purchase of property.

Zmirak is right that the Church's opposition to «religious liberty» heated up during the eighteenth and nineteenth century — when «religious liberty» was being used to mean the guillotine, the abolition of the clergy, and the disenfranchisement of Church schools.

I wonder what Miss Morality is going to do when they start telling her that her bisexuality is immoral and wrong, and her gay - rights activism is immoral and wrong, and her use and activism for contraception is immoral and wrong, and her stances on religious freedom are immoral and wrong, and her notions that the Church should welcome critical thinking and demands for evidence are immoral and wrong?

Out of such varying uses of the right of private discretion there grew up schools of religious thought which in time gained popularity in Islam and were allowed to spread.

The Buddhists were suffering serious religious, social, and economic disabilities under the Brahman rule, as is shown by their petition to Qasim for the right to worship in their Buddhist temples as they used to do.

For example — Often used by many christians as an arguement for intolerence towards human rights... I pose that every religiously ran nation like that of Iran and Iraq are exactly what the religious in this supposedly tolerent country wish to turn this country into, where science and logically thought are frowned upon and knowledge of fairy tales are rewarded.

For that to happen, Catholics need to be courageous, both in asserting their right to religious freedom, and making use of it when they have got it.

The Bible can't be used to verify claims any more than the Quran or the Book of Mormon, as all religious texts first require a basic belief on the part of the reader that they (the texts) are right in order to be viewed as such.

due to some crazy religious beliefs out there in the world i.e. marrying off young children and marrying genetic kin, the government can't ever allow religion to dictate marriage policy, so have your ceremonies and deny same - gender couples to marry in your church but bluntly stated your crying and foot - stomping will accomplish nothing, marriage isn't a religious thing it is a civil rights and equality thing, thus if the religious win by denying same gender cuples their civil rights to equal treatment under the law, then don't be surprised when others use those same grounds to deny you your rights under the law.

they were religious and using their bible to attempt to block those laws from being passed, america would be a very different place if they had won on the grounds of «god said it was right»

You may believe the Bible tells you gays should be able to marry or maybe even that blacks should not be able to marry whites (another thing people have used the Bible to protest against); however, that does not mean that US civil equal rights laws should be based on your personal religious beliefs.

«Christians therefore have the right to deny entry to any religious department officer who requests entry into a meeting at a house, church premise, or any private property used for Christian worship and activities,» wrote Eugene Yapp, secretary - general for the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), in an advisory to the nation's nearly 2,500 evangelical churches.

(i) a woman's right to an abortion; (iii) medical immunization of teen girls (and boys) against HPV; (iv) assisted suicide; (vi) gay marriage; (vii) my right to view art and theatre deemed «offensive,» «blasphemous» or «obscene» Catholics; (viii) basic $ ex education for older school children; (ix) treating drug abuse as principally a medical issue; (x) population control; (xi) buying alcohol on a Sunday in many places; (xii) use of condoms and other contraceptives; (xiii) embryonic stem cell research; (xiv) little 10 year - old boys joining organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, regardless of the religious views of their parents; and (xv) gays being allowed to serve openly in the military.

they will use the appearance of other religions to boost their case, but their main objective is to further the cause of the religious right and let it rule your government.

You express American religious freedom very well right there at the beginning of your post: «consider yourself what you wish... doesn't make it so...» Yet they are not concerned with what is actually real, but only what they believe in their heads using emotional and cultural feedback to reinforce their beliefs.

Thus, with an extreme irony, and an arrogant inconsistency, an exaggerated version of «gay rights» is being used against the right to religious freedom - a concept that lies at the very heart of any coherent concept of rights at all.

At the end of the day humanity needs both, scientists who ask if what they are doing is right, and religious leaders who use reason, and that only happens when the two sides meet in the middle.

He is deeply saddened by the way the «religious right» uses religion for partisan political purposes.

NARTH has become the primary source for the faulty research and scientific distortions used by the religious right to justify their continued opposition to LGBT equality.

Taking up the question of architecture, music, sculpture, painting, literature, philosophy, and the artistic life, Christian next refers to George Weigel's book, The Cube and the Cathedral, which uses Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris (representing religious art) and La Grande Arche de la Defense (representing secular art) to ask, Which culture would better protect human rights and the moral foundations of democracy?

The use of religion to deny religious rights is illogical and short - sighted.

Think of all the atheist that have died protecting your rights as a US citizen, even the freedom of religion, yet now they want to use the right for freedom of speech or press, religious fanatics are claiming Atheist don't have the right

People speaking out against bigotry and hate by people who use their religious beliefs to justify depriving others of the human rights the religious claim for themselves by virtue of their beliefs.

So basically, Russ, you dragged MLK into this because he's a religious figure who stood up for human rights, and you are trying to use that to defend men who use their religion to try to deny human rights to others.

You may answer by saying «it's the moral think to do» but using «God» provides a nice quick and dirty shortcut... We just sometimes have to accept the good (getting these dimwits to do the right think) with the bad (religious fanatics who think the world was formed a little over 2000 years ago)...

At least part of the success of the new Right and the Religious Right, who often refer to themselves as «Movement Conservatives» and «Social Conservatives,» stems from their skillful use of technology and organization.

The Christian religious freedom group argues that, as a person of faith and as an artist, Phillips has the right to use discretion in the projects he works on — particularly when they oppose his religious beliefs.

See, for instance, the use of 2 Chronicles 7:14 («If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and heal their land») by many in the Evangelical wing of the religious right.

Requiring that it be made AVAILABLE to people isn't infringing on religious rights, and no one is forcing anyone to USE birth control.

I am going to weigh in, being a catholic and the whole shabang... First of all this is not infringing on anyone's right to practice their religion... Requiring insurance companies to provide contraception for women does not mean the woman has to use it or purchase it... Catholic hospitals take federal funds for their patients, therefore they are not exempt from employment laws... If the Catholic Diocese doesn't want to provide the insurance claiming religious beliefs, then they can no longer accept federal funded patients... They also know that they will be subjected to discrimination lawsuits based hiring and religious discrimination — non-catholics work there, and therefore are being denied healthcare due to catholic beliefs... Majority if not all Catholic women do, have, or had used contraception in their lifetime... God does not nor does the bible say anything about contraception, since it had not been invented yet — so this is a man - made law, made by a bunch of men, who have never had a menstrual cycle — and the pain that comes with it....

Whichever is right» whether marriage is or is not a purely private matter in which the state has no abiding interest» the deeper and more immediate danger of the marriage issue for Christians is its potential use by gay activists to undermine the autonomy of the Church and other religious entities.

The strife caused by the spread of Calvinism, the attempt of the monarchy to create a royal religion which could not be used to undermine monarchic authority, and the resistance to a coercive and intolerant state all created a place for religious discussion about tyrannicide, contract theory, divine right, and religious tolerance.

For right now, the «standard» religious symbolism of Christian images, the ones that believers pray before and use within their worship, really don't have any place decorating public places in America because their presence there only serves to mark them as places of worship too.

Isn't it Israel fighting all as a Jewish state her acts pushed every body to use her same weapon disguising crimes under religious covers depriving people from their rights, destructed their houses, cut their trees, took their lives and lands.

And they USE those rights — the outspoken ones are bent on depriving US of our OWN religious rights — through their use of theiUSE those rights — the outspoken ones are bent on depriving US of our OWN religious rights — through their use of theiuse of theirs.

In its «Christian» form, this ideology, especially as used by the Religious Right, has undergirded and sought to legitimate the current Promethean world order of the West in general and the U.S. in particular.

This is common for any judgmental society or person, as long as they use their religious background and beliefs to justify taking away rights, implementing rules to defame groups of other people they feel are not of their group's «norm.»

It withdraws protection from the weak and vulnerable, allowing the strong to define the status and rights of the weak; it privatizes matters which, in any legitimate political order, must be public in nature; it sets innumerable roadblocks to the rectification of the problem through mutual deliberation of citizens in legislative assemblies; and it has made what used to be its most loyal citizens — religious believers — enemies of the common good whenever their convictions touch upon public things.

(Religious Language, p. 112) Mrs. Dixon's children were right, because the use of the name Yahweh gave them a personal handle by which they could think about God, but as they grow they will be ready for the further disclosure of the mystery where all that God will say is, «I am I,» which is the ultimate tautology.

It would ne nice to accept our own moral compasses or as I put it «a morally correct manner» and then leave it at that, accept only detailed proven facts and then use your best judgment on the rest, its more likely to be right then listening or reading «facts» by those who tell you to not look for them or prove them one way r the other, that's the Fox News of the religious world... Religion is more dangerous then a blind man in a room of razors, it hurts, kills and destroys more of humanity then any «God Made» disaster.