Freedom of religion -Isn't this a basic human right?

[AxisMundi]

Please be so kind as to point out the part of the US Constitution that states that a Nativity scene is not allowed to be displayed because some self righteous Atheist or Muslim does not want to see it.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the earliest legal definitional work for American legal definitions...

Bouvier Law Dictionaryhttp://www.constitution.org/bouv

ESTABLISH. This word occurs frequently in the Constitution of the United $tates, and it is there used in different meanings.... 4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ....

One can readily see that the phrase Mr. Jefferson coined to explain this concept to the legal laymen of the Danbury Association is indeed correct and accurate. The Establishment Clause does indeed erect a Wall of Separation between Church and State, not a turnstile, to ensure relgiious equality and freedom by ensuring that no one religion, or denomination/sect thereof, took control of the Nation.

The First Amendment reserves the rights of private citizens, and religious institutions, to bedeck their properties with as much religious symbology as they wish. It also was intended to ban even the appearance of government endorsement of religion as seen today with nativity scenes, and the paraphernalia of other religions, on government property.

Whether there has been an active theodemocratic movement in this Nations since day one, or some people were just too accustomed to the theonomy of the British Empire and sought to include that concept in the new US, or a combination of both, there has always been a movement to undermine the First Amendment. This movement gained much momentum thanks to the US Civil War, using that conflict to include "In God We Trust" on the two cent coin. Other examples include Christmas as a federal holiday and our current National Anthem, both enacted in the 1870's. The movement culminated, and stalled, in the 1950's with the replacement of our National Motto and Pledge with Christian prayers.

The movement today, including forcing religious symbology back onto private lands where it belongs and where it can be throughly protected, is an attempt to reassert these Constitutional Principles.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Absolutely not. In fact, there are some Vaisnavic sects that accept the Qur'an as Vedic Sruti. Hindus don't really pay much attention to the "different" religions, rather viewing them as just different paths to God. We don't have to follow a path to accept its validity.

This was true in the past. Today there are some Hindu fundamentalists who want to drive all of Islam out of India.

 

[Riverwolf]

This was true in the past. Today there are some Hindu fundamentalists who want to drive all of Islam out of India.

I said "some." ^_^

 

[AxisMundi]

No it isn't.
Seems I am actually using more of my brain than you are of yours.

The fact is that your religious freedoms come to a complete halt when it interferes with anothers religious freedom.

Your inability to understand this fact is not a fault of mine.

The fact is that your are not given the right to not have to see religious symbols, scenes, logos, phrases, etc. outside your own home.

Why this fact is so difficult for you to understand is beyond me.

You seemed to be intelligent enough to...

If you would like to continue with the ad hominem,
I can no doubt take you to school in it.

Wow, just... wow.

Either I am not making myself clear, you have some MAJOR reading comprehension troubles, or you'r lsitening too closely to the neocon media machine.

What, exactly, do you think freedom FROM religion entails?

Do you really think this includes some inherent fantasy right not to be offended every time someone passes a church?

And please, if you wish to go toe to toe with ad hominems, I'll be more than happy to go Old School on you, youngun.

 

[AxisMundi]

This was true in the past. Today there are some Hindu fundamentalists who want to drive all of Islam out of India.

Everyone has their own Fundies.

Even Atheists.

 

[CoolSunshine]

How can anybody promise such neutrality? America is hardly a model for ideal secularism, after all.

USA is a superpower which makes it to twist its arms over other states like Iraq.
Secularism has nothing to do with it.But secular countries provide great freedom for its own people.Whereas a minority Bahai,Buddhist etc may not get similar freedom in the arab world.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, is this a real link?

It is a real link to the official website.

 

[AxisMundi]

Thank you for yet another prime example that shows your idea of freedom from religion is just plain flat out wrong.

Prop 8 is based purely on biblical principles, there is no valid secular reasoning for Prop 8.

It was also pushed through by religious institutions, including the LDS and Catholic churches, as well as several "religious" organizations that contain "family" in their name.

Each and every citizen of California is being forced to live by religious doctrines.

 

[Riverwolf]

USA is a superpower which makes it to twist its arms over other states like Iraq.

That's putting it mildly...

Secularism has nothing to do with it.But secular countries provide great freedom for its own people.Whereas a minority Bahai,Buddhist etc may not get similar freedom in the arab world.

Yeah. And?

 

[Riverwolf]

Each and every citizen of California is being forced to live by religious doctrines.

Uh... I'm a citizen of California, and I follow whatever I want to follow. Even if Hinduism was somehow outlawed, I'd still follow it.

If you're talking about Prop 8, that only affects homosexuals. I voted "No" on it. However, as is the American Way, not very many people actually voted.

 

[McBell]

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the earliest legal definitional work for American legal definitions...

Bouvier Law Dictionary

ESTABLISH. This word occurs frequently in the Constitution of the United $tates, and it is there used in different meanings.... 4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ....

One can readily see that the phrase Mr. Jefferson coined to explain this concept to the legal laymen of the Danbury Association is indeed correct and accurate. The Establishment Clause does indeed erect a Wall of Separation between Church and State, not a turnstile, to ensure relgiious equality and freedom by ensuring that no one religion, or denomination/sect thereof, took control of the Nation.

The First Amendment reserves the rights of private citizens, and religious institutions, to bedeck their properties with as much religious symbology as they wish. It also was intended to ban even the appearance of government endorsement of religion as seen today with nativity scenes, and the paraphernalia of other religions, on government property.

Whether there has been an active theodemocratic movement in this Nations since day one, or some people were just too accustomed to the theonomy of the British Empire and sought to include that concept in the new US, or a combination of both, there has always been a movement to undermine the First Amendment. This movement gained much momentum thanks to the US Civil War, using that conflict to include "In God We Trust" on the two cent coin. Other examples include Christmas as a federal holiday and our current National Anthem, both enacted in the 1870's. The movement culminated, and stalled, in the 1950's with the replacement of our National Motto and Pledge with Christian prayers.

The movement today, including forcing religious symbology back onto private lands where it belongs and where it can be throughly protected, is an attempt to reassert these Constitutional Principles.

Funny, that says absolutely nothing about my neighbors nativity scene being unconstitutional.

Even though there was a group of idiots who filed a lawsuit that his nativity scene violated their "constitutional freedom from religion".
I mean, one of them actually lived right up the street.
He had to look it at every day.

Nor does it address the right for people to not have to see the local Amish and Muslim in their traditional dress.
I mean this group had to look at them and in doing so their freedom from religion was violated.

So you see, the constitution does not grant you freedom from religion.
As Prop 8 also clearly shows.

 

[Sahar]

It is a real link to the official website.

It's not working...

 

[McBell]

Wow, just... wow.

Either I am not making myself clear, you have some MAJOR reading comprehension troubles, or you'r lsitening too closely to the neocon media machine.

What, exactly, do you think freedom FROM religion entails?

Do you really think this includes some inherent fantasy right not to be offended every time someone passes a church?

And please, if you wish to go toe to toe with ad hominems, I'll be more than happy to go Old School on you, youngun.

Unfortunately for you, there are loads of people who think that that is exactly what freedom from religion means.

Sad that you are not experienced enough with the real outside world to be able to comprehend this reality.

 

[McBell]

Prop 8 is based purely on biblical principles, there is no valid secular reasoning for Prop 8.

It was also pushed through by religious institutions, including the LDS and Catholic churches, as well as several "religious" organizations that contain "family" in their name.

Each and every citizen of California is being forced to live by religious doctrines.

I completely agree.
Now please explain how this purely religious law helps your "freedom from religion" argument.

 

[CoolSunshine]

Yeah. And?

It is not fine to be non-secular.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is not fine to be non-secular.

That's why we ARE secular.

As for those who aren't right now, they'll come to it in their own time.

 

[AxisMundi]

Uh... I'm a citizen of California, and I follow whatever I want to follow. Even if Hinduism was somehow outlawed, I'd still follow it.

If you're talking about Prop 8, that only affects homosexuals. I voted "No" on it. However, as is the American Way, not very many people actually voted.

Trying marrying another guy, and see how quickly you "aren't being made to live by Christian principles".

 

[AxisMundi]

I completely agree.
Now please explain how this purely religious law helps your "freedom from religion" argument.

Religious doctrine has been forced on each and every citizen of California.

This is a case of there being NO freedom from religion.

There are also religions who do not ostracize and oppress gays, who see homosexuality as completely natural, and see that love and committed intimate relationships are a matter of the heart, not of genitalia.

These people are NOT free to practice their own religion, whether themselves gay and wishing to marry, or clergy wishing to provide marriage services to same-gendered couples.

Prop 8 also, of course, severally impacts the lives of gay Atheists as well.

 

[AxisMundi]

Unfortunately for you, there are loads of people who think that that is exactly what freedom from religion means.

And we who do know what it means go onto web forums to educate people.

Trouble is, most, it seems, who misunderstand the concept are those who stand to loose the most if a competing religion/denomination/sect were to gain power and eliminate the concept.

Sad that you are not experienced enough with the real outside world to be able to comprehend this reality.

Not a bad attempt at an ad hominem, even though it ignores the fact that I am a grandfather so it kind of missed it's mark (by a few parsecs).

Do you remember where you were when JFK was shot?

 

[McBell]

Do you remember where you were when JFK was shot?

November 1963 about noon-noon-thirty in Dallas Texas on Elm street, I believe.