freedom...

The line between religious freedom and individual rights is blurry. That is why we have a constitution which protects individuals. We do not ideally allow laws which violate freedom, and we a a slow track bloody track record of fixing those which have. Regulations and group consensus is allowed unless it impinges on the freedom of others. That is why we have separation of church and state. Because in America, no single or group of religions are allowed to dictate the morality by which other people may live freely. Advocate, certainly. Dictate, definitely not. We are forever trying to impinge on the freedom of individuals, and it is only our constitution advocating ideals of freedom which allows us to course correct. I would think we would learn from our past and gain wisdom. Wisdom is not a human survival trait, neither is kindness. 

Why don't Americans understand that, in America, you don't get to impose your point of view, even if you are in the majority. This is why we abolished slavery. This is why women have the right to vote. This is why "Gay Marriage" should be a no brainer. While marriage is also a sacrament of many religions, it is defined and a legal status of individuals, upon which legislation is based. This makes it also under the law secular and since you cannot be married without a government license, marriage licenses cannot be limited. Not from the state or government's point of view. Churches have the right not to marry people who do not practice their faith. There is no violation of anyone's belief about marriage to allow others to have and practice different beliefs. Why does not it seem unreasonable to need to debate this? Why can't we see the similarity of our past mistakes and learn from them? Why is it so hard for us to see freedom from some else's point of view?

I wish once in a while someone would say out loud the truth. "I am bigoted. I think I have the right to limit your freedom to build a church on land any other church is permitted to, or to marry the person of your choice and raise a family with them, because I am offended, I want my feelings of offense to overrule your freedom to do what offends me, because I do not value justice and freedom for all, in this instance. It is ok with me that I, an American, insist you protect my freedoms, while I am blatantly stomping on your freedoms in America." Why can't we call a spade a spade and then have a discussion. Do we somehow believe we are not bigoted if we somehow if we avoid stating the obvious?

I find it ironic that we obsess about words like the "N" word and now the "R" word (which, by the way, took me some time to figure out meant "retarded.") as though any or every context is the same as a specific context.

I loved the Vermont bear in a straight-jacket who was a depiction as being nuts over someone. That was about being insanely in love, not about humiliating people who are insane.

We call people stupid and used to say "retarded" not because we were intending to humiliate a person who has a limited mental ability, but rather because an obviously smart person was behaving in a way that contradicted their intelligence.

Sure, we are often being mean to people with these words, but not necessarily, it is a matter of context.

Even being mean, which I do not advocate, is not always the same as attacking those with mental disabilities, directly or indirectly.

Why is it not blatantly obvious that context makes a difference.

Discrimination is a dirty word, but we do it all the time. Individuals have a right to their opinions and beliefs and to act discriminately. (Not businesses and towns, states and federal government). Discrimination is not always clear-cut, but sometimes, when it is blatantly clear-cut, we are blind to the obvious.

I don't understand how people, when given a clear and indisputable analogy, fail to grasp it. Just because there is a fuzzy line doesn't mean everything is fuzzy. I think Americans have a conditional notion on what freedom is and it is biased by their morality and beliefs.

Why can't someone say the obvious? In America we believe in freedom to a point... We regularly compromise our value of freedom to have our point of view imposed on others.

Churches are fuzzier than most. I don't know exactly how to draw lines here. But I do think that we are lax in our laws which impact them and what they do to others.

Parenting is also fuzzy, in that what freedoms for children does the government protect, limiting what a parent might do in razing them. What I wonder is how do children learn what it means to be American. What freedom and what safety does the government provide.