He doesn't want anyone prosecuted for their beliefs but if they break a law he does.

So in other words whatever the law says regardless of what your religion is you have to obey.

That's fine if the law doesn't seek to step on toes. As Jesus is meant to have said, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's'.

It's the basis of the west's separation of church and state.

Seems to me that WE just wants Gab restricted and is willing to defend any old crap motive to that end.

More waffles than Tescos.....just the same rolling trolling.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Sep 2021 7.25pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Are you seriously suggesting that someone can use their religious belief as a justification to break the law and not be prosecuted as a consequence?

Just think of the implications of that, because what is permitted for one is permitted for all.

It's total nonsense. It also has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, which is a philosophical political covenant that says that the state won't interfere in how a church is run, and the church won't interfere in how the state is run. It does not mean that church members are isolated from state law. All citizens are. Some churches, for instance the Roman Catholics, define canon law, but that's all they do, and it's restricted solely to church matters.

I don't want Gab "restricted". I want all social media platforms to obey the law and to behave responsibly. I want them to co-operate with government to eliminate things that are found, by a generally accepted consensus, to be dangerous to others. That consensus not being established either by government or the companies themselves, but by a respected independent watchdog.

I realise the downside, but the alternative of not doing something is worse, in my view, than in doing it. We are in a new era which demands new thinking on an international scale.

There is a great deal more at stake here than just the plaything of an American Christian fundamentalist, whose motivations are becoming increasingly questionable.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I had to laugh, Sikhs refused to wear helmet on motorbikes and the law was changed to accommodate them.

Also, the Christian bakery who refused to bake a cake and ice it with 'support gay marriage' on it eventually won the day in court.....however if they hadn't had the religious aspect they wouldn't have.

Once again made silly by his own words.

People break laws all the time for principles, religious or not.....when homosexuality was illegal for example....I can imagine the social conservative version of WE making this argument of adherence to the law despite any personal convictions......This way very little would ever really change.

As for the rest of the waffle, it's characterised by that manipulation of wordplay....stating one thing before seemingly contradicting it.

I can't be bothered.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You need to actually read what I write and not make assumptions born out of your prejudices. Rather than making me look "silly" you really ought to reflect on how ridiculous this makes you look, to anyone with the eyes to see it.

No-where have I said that people aren't free to break the law. As you point out, they can, and they do, and changes to the law can sometimes result. That's a matter of conscience. What I have said is that no-one is above the law and insulated from prosecution. Those cake makers were prosecuted, and in the event they were found (very wrongly in my own view) not guilty. They were though subject to the law. As were the Sikhs who refused to wear helmets. That their disobedience campaign resulted in the law being changed is another issue. The law of the time applied to them just as much as it did to everyone else.

What you have tried to do is a regular tactic of yours. Deflection from the actual issue. Andrew Torba can break the law if he chooses to, but he is as subject to it as everyone else. It doesn't seem to me as though he accepts this is the position and believes that "God's law" is superior. Which is a defence which has failed in the past.

My original question wasn't whether people could break the law if they chose to, or not. It was:-

"Do you think that the appeals to God as the ultimate authority, and justification, is wise, given that there are echoes of the reasoning used by extremists of other faiths to be heard?"

So is it wise, give the context of today's world?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wow.

They were targetted by gay activists they were quite happy to produce a cake for anyone just not the pro gay marriage message. This case was about whose rights were being infringed.

The court correctly decided that the gay person did not have the right to insist that the bakers put a message they could not agree with.

If the court had upheld the decision it could mean for instance that a Muslim or black baker could be forced to produce a cake with something they felt offensive on.

FYI Peter Tatchell the gay rights activist agreed with the court decision as he could see the wider implications. This was never about "get out your gay I'm not serving you".

One more point

And benefits.

One more point