Galt's Gulch
-1

Guantanamo Detainees Cite Hobby Lobby Ruling In Religious Liberty Case

Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 4 months ago to Politics
5 comments | Share | Flag

For those saying that the ruling wouldn't spill over into other areas, well...
SOURCE URL: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/08/3457330/gitmo-hobby-lobby-court-filing/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Snoogoo 10 years, 4 months ago
    If exercising their religious rights infringes on the rights of other, non-criminals right to stay alive and safe, then I don't think it applies. I have the right to exercise my religion, but if my religion tells me to kill another individual, then I cannot claim that by the law not allowing me to kill the other person does not apply because it is infringing on my rights to practice my religion. Problem solved, next!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 4 months ago
    It doesn't apply to them. Their religious rights are not protected.
    Detainees are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
    They are the property of the United States military.

    See how easy these problems are to solve if you just hand them over to bastard like me?

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by livefreely 10 years, 4 months ago
      Is that why your comments show up as hidden because you are a bastard? That concerns me because I was just told to mind my sarcasm on a post. I wasn't sarcastic there at least not in my mind. So is that what happens if you are down voted too many times? I will be careful not to offend.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 4 months ago
        No, my posts are hidden because, like in a recent thread, the anti-Christian elements were criticizing "religion" (ie, bashing Christians under the guise of criticizing religion), and I posted a message quoting a theoretical "Objectivist pedophile" justifying his behavior because he was trading value for value. I can't elaborate more than that.

        The point I was trying to make, as I recall, is that any philosophy can have people hiding behind it who aren't really advocates; that doesn't negate the value of the philosophy.

        (I'd been watching a particularly disturbing episode of Law & order SVU where a perp had tried to do just what I described above, and it stuck in my mind, unfortunately).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo