Let's finally hash it out -- what religious liberties are Americans lacking?

[amorphous_constellation]

What liberties are the state supposedly repressing?

*is? My grammar is getting worse, oh well

 

[Revoltingest]

Now that, I agree, is a lack of religious freedom. In Canada, our Supreme Court holds that the right to hold religious beliefs is broader than the right to act on them (by gum I like that!!). So one presumes that an accused may be required to answer questions about religious belief if that belief has led to the action for which the accused is charged.

In USA, it's common for courts to require
swearing an oath to God to tell the truth.
One must announce to the judge & jury
if one wants a secular oath. This is likely
to prejudice believers against the deponent,
given the rampant bigotry by believers.

In Atheists We Distrust

Subjects believe that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them

www.scientificamerican.com

Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice - PubMed

Recent polls indicate that atheists are among the least liked people in areas with religious majorities (i.e., in most of the world). The sociofunctional approach to prejudice, combined with a cultural evolutionary theory of religion's effects on cooperation, suggest that anti-atheist prejudice...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This came up in another thread, by a member who suggested that Trump will "restore religious liberties." But it brings up the question, does it not? What religious liberties do Americans not have, that they are so anxious to have given back to them?

I'm not going to spoil the thread by suggesting answers -- I really and truly just wish to ask the question, of Americans (or any other western democracy, if they'd care to participate). What religious liberties do you want, that you currently do not have?

The term was Defend Religious Liberty, not Restore religious Liberty. It is in Trump's Agenda 47.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The term was Defend Religious Liberty, not Restore religious Liberty. It is in Trump's Agenda 47.

Not sure that I think the difference is worth celebrating, frankly. Restore the religious right to burn witches, or merely defend that right? Nope, not seeing how one is so much better than the other.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not sure that I think the difference is worth celebrating, frankly. Restore the religious right to burn witches, or merely defend that right? Nope, not seeing how one is so much better than the other.

OMG, He means to protect the constitutional rights that people currently have on religious liberty. No one is defending witch burning. Jeeze.

 

[Quintessence]

Not sure that I think the difference is worth celebrating, frankly. Restore the religious right to burn witches, or merely defend that right? Nope, not seeing how one is so much better than the other.

Can you supply any evidence that this is going to be used to attack and persecute the contemporary Pagan community, including but not limited to modern practitioners of witchcraft? As a member of this community, I take this notion very, very seriously. I have seen little to no indication of renewed persecution of Pagans by the political right, in spite of conditions being ripe for additional attacks like this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OMG, He means to protect the constitutional rights that people currently have on religious liberty. No one is defending witch burning. Jeeze.

Can you supply any evidence that this is going to be used to attack and persecute the contemporary Pagan community, including but not limited to modern practitioners of witchcraft? As a member of this community, I take this notion very, very seriously. I have seen little to no indication of renewed persecution of Pagans by the political right, in spite of conditions being ripe for additional attacks like this.

It was hyperbole, used figuratively to emphasize a point!

But it still rankles that bakers, per SCOTUS, can refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple for reasons of "religious belief" (Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Human Rights Commisson). Bakers are not expressing their opinion on the cake, they are baking a cake and writing on what the customer wishes. That same baker, when making a birthday cake for a child he doesn't know, has no interest in what the writing on that cake is -- he is not connected to the event in anyway except mechically providing a service to a customer wishing to make their child happy.

I wonder what would happen if that same Christian baker refused to make a cake that said "Happy Chanukah," or a Bar-Mitzvah cake for a boy celebrating his coming-of-age, because they can't celebrate a Jewish holiday. Or for a store to sell a child's car-seat to the same-sex parents of an adopted child?

 

[Quintessence]

It was hyperbole, used figuratively to emphasize a point!

While I am relieved this isn't serious, I do not think this use of "hyperbole" was at all useful in making your point. Especially after more than one user has posted in this thread about how religious minorities - and Pagans specifically - get treated differently when it comes to the matter of religious liberty.

But it still rankles that bakers, per SCOTUS, can refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple for reasons of "religious belief" (Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Human Rights Commisson).

I didn't (and still don't) have a problem with that ruling. If I ever worked on commission as a freelance artist again, I would absolutely reserve the right to refuse any commission I want for whatever reason I want, including but not limited to something being against my religion. The lost business would be my problem, as there are plenty of other artists who would have no qualms about doing a commission that, say, advocates for forced birth.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It was hyperbole, used figuratively to emphasize a point!

But it still rankles that bakers, per SCOTUS, can refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple for reasons of "religious belief" (Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Human Rights Commisson). Bakers are not expressing their opinion on the cake, they are baking a cake and writing on what the customer wishes. That same baker, when making a birthday cake for a child he doesn't know, has no interest in what the writing on that cake is -- he is not connected to the event in anyway except mechically providing a service to a customer wishing to make their child happy.

I wonder what would happen if that same Christian baker refused to make a cake that said "Happy Chanukah," or a Bar-Mitzvah cake for a boy celebrating his coming-of-age, because they can't celebrate a Jewish holiday. Or for a store to sell a child's car-seat to the same-sex parents of an adopted child?

How is this an issue about Trumps stance? The SCOTUS determined that was a religious liberty they had. Trump would defend that, if SCOTUS said no they don't have that right Trump would not defend it. Like I said all it says is Trump will defend religious liberty people already have.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Marriage license requirements, ban on polygamy, and use of psychedelic substances in religious rituals are 3 examples that come to mind.

As far as I'm aware, Native American tribes have clashed with the government (state or federal) over the use of peyote, but it seems that it has now reached a point where there's an exemption for them. That's fine, but what if someone says that cocaine, cannabis, magic mushrooms, toad venom, opioids, narcotics, or whatever is part of their religion (regardless of whether it's been a part of their religion for a long time or just started today)? Will the government leave them alone? If not, then I think we'd have a double standard.

Native Americans have the unique position of being a government within a government. Otherwise the US federal government would have a heyday with them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How is this an issue about Trumps stance? The SCOTUS determined that was a religious liberty they had. Trump would defend that, if SCOTUS said no they don't have that right Trump would not defend it. Like I said all it says is Trump will defend religious liberty people already have.

Yes, I recall Trump saying in October 2023 that while he was president the US stood up for Israel and “Judeo-Christian civilization and values.” In that same event, he doubled down down on the hardline immigration policies that have long animated his base, vowing to bar refugees from Gaza and immediately expand his first-term Muslim travel ban if he wins a second term following the deadly attack on Israel last week.

So do you mean "religious liberty" or "your particular religion's liberty?"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but it seems that it has now reached a point where there's an exemption for them

Now? Clinton signed the law that allows them to use peyote 30 years ago.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Twilight Hue]

What liberties are the state supposedly repressing? I think in modern times, religion seems to want to influence the laws of society with moralisms, though the religions that had moralisms always sort of did , and probably inevitably always did influence the state. States tend to like to moderate behavior, it helps in governing and organization.

At the same time, the modern state probably does have a role in moderating religious impulses that get too radical, and if you were to bring back many religions from two thousand years ago (as they were practiced then) into the modern state, the modern state would likely want to moderate them all pretty hard.

That said, the 1st paragraph I wrote is what is relevant here, I think. And that is the idea that modern religion generally wants the 'liberty' to add another layer of law-like moralism to the population. I guess that's what you call a oxymoron right

Most of it started with restrictions that essentially violates the 1st amendment Constitutional right for religious to assemble together.

The threat is the removal of constitutional freedoms by radical Democrat factions that are still posing a grave threat to those protected freedoms by violating their constitutional rights because they got away with forbidding religious assembly during the pandemic.

 

[crossfire]

That's what I'm talking about, marriage licenses being a legal requirement, not a religious requirement.

By involving itself in marriage, the state/government in the US is infringing on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, and states rights doesn't give them an excuse to ignore the Bill of Rights.

Some religions, like Buddhism, consider marriage to be a completely secular matter.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, I recall Trump saying in October 2023 that while he was president the US stood up for Israel and “Judeo-Christian civilization and values.” In that same event, he doubled down down on the hardline immigration policies that have long animated his base, vowing to bar refugees from Gaza and immediately expand his first-term Muslim travel ban if he wins a second term following the deadly attack on Israel last week.

So do you mean "religious liberty" or "your particular religion's liberty?"

I am an atheist. You are reading so much into this because you hate Trump. He has to be doing something evil all the time right?

Do you think people have religious liberty that needs to be defended? That is all he said, he will defend religious liberty that people already have.

 

[PureX]

The restore religious liberties, such as praying at school,

Forced prayer in school is not a religious liberty. It's religious oppression. Disrupting school conduct to accommodate religious expression is likewise an act of religious oppression. Disrupting public events to accommodate religious expression is also an act of religious oppression.

as long as it is peaceful, Big Brother has to butt out or go to jail.

"So long as it is peaceful" is not the appropriate criteria to be applied. "Freedom from" is.

 

[anotherneil]

Native Americans have the unique position of being a government within a government. Otherwise the US federal government would have a heyday with them.

That's just a superficial and inconsequential detail & I think it's analogous to the governments of the 50 states being governments within a (federal) government.

I think both federal and state (maybe I'm wrong about state, IDK) have tried to have a "heyday" with them. I don't remember the details, but they've tried to impose European religion principles on them, including and particularly with recreational types of substances like peyote (even for religious purposes).

 

[anotherneil]

Now? Clinton signed the law that allows them to use peyote 30 years ago.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The point would be that Clinton shouldn't have to sign such a law; it's just political grandstanding and implies that they're only allowed to use peyote because some bill signed into law - which can be repealed at any time - gives them the green light to do so. The 1st Amendment already protects their freedom of religion, and can't simply be repealed like some bill signed into law. It's a BS law, not because it "gives" them a right to something, but because it pretends to give them a right to something that they already have regardless of this law's existence.

 

[anotherneil]

Some religions, like Buddhism, consider marriage to be a completely secular matter.

Does this negate the point of the argument? I don't think it affects it.

 

[Kenny]

This came up in another thread, by a member who suggested that Trump will "restore religious liberties." But it brings up the question, does it not? What religious liberties do Americans not have, that they are so anxious to have given back to them?

I'm not going to spoil the thread by suggesting answers -- I really and truly just wish to ask the question, of Americans (or any other western democracy, if they'd care to participate). What religious liberties do you want, that you currently do not have?

It isn’t just “a single area) but rather a constant effort to infringe on religious rights that have to be dealt with again and again… such as:

Discrimination Against Catholic Adoption Services

Printable Version Catholic Charities agencies around the country have long provided adoption and foster care services to the neediest children. Catholi...

www.usccb.org

Breaking Down the Law: Why Nevada's religious gathering restrictions were struck down

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling on a challenge to Governor Sisolak’s capacity restrictions on religious gatherings. Governor Sisolak’s prior order restricted religious gatherings to no more than 50 people. Relying upon the recent U. S. Supreme Court...

news3lv.com

And there is always an endless list.