Freedom of religion, or freedom from it?

[LiberalMedia]

As much as the far left loves to run on about such topics (and they prove they do not understand anything beyond their programming). The fact of the matter is that religion is intertwined with government especially in the terms of "Marriage"..

Since "Marriage" is spread among many of the religions on this planet is recognized as a religious tradition. So the whole things of "separation of church and state" will never happen until you get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

This is absolutely backward reasoning that can only be seen coming from conservatards.

It isn't government that needs to be thrown out of the marriage issue, it's religion. Religion has NO PLACE telling me who I can and cannot marry--not that I would ever choose to marry as it is a form of slavery, even when done in glorious lysbyyn union, but that's best saved for another discussion.

Marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. It is a contract between two or more pyrsyns that spells out ryghts and oblygations, just like any other contract. Fundamentalist Christ-stains took over the institution of marriage unjustly and unlawfully, and now they're furious that they're being made to relinquish their power of social engineering and surrender it back to We the Pyyple.

What utter nonsense! People were getting married religiously, long before government ever got involved in the institution.

Prove it.

When we get the government out of marriage, then the gays, transsexuals, Mormons, and those who want to marry their dogs, can marry at will.

Nonsense. That will only happen when we get religion out of marriage. Am I right, or can you name a church that would accept a dog-humyn marriage?

 

[occupied]

The churches have full protection from the government in their practices except one thing, the thing they really want, to make every law and candidate pass their piety test therefore making themselves a de-facto branch of government, that simply cannot be allowed. The wall of separation was never meant to protect churches and religious organizations from secular push-back as they try to gain secular political power.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The churches have full protection from the government in their practices except one thing, the thing they really want, to make every law and candidate pass their piety test therefore making themselves a de-facto branch of government, that simply cannot be allowed. The wall of separation was never meant to protect churches and religious organizations from secular push-back as they try to gain secular political power.

More hysteria . . . and rank hypocrisy from the Sieg Heiling left.

occupied is exhibit A for why any sustainable social contract must emphatically assert the irrevocable natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Againsheila]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Don't worry, s(he) will get to live. It's those of us that are religious that will die and s(he) won't have any problem with that. Probably thinks we deserve it.

 

[OKTexas]

The churches have full protection from the government in their practices except one thing, the thing they really want, to make every law and candidate pass their piety test therefore making themselves a de-facto branch of government, that simply cannot be allowed. The wall of separation was never meant to protect churches and religious organizations from secular push-back as they try to gain secular political power.

If they gain political power it will be through the democratic process, they have as much right to do that as any special interest group.

 

[tinydancer]

To me the term "freedom from religion" means that our laws should be free from narrow religious influence, it also means that religious folks are free to do every thing their faith requires except directly participate in politics as an organized group or use the mechanism of government for the purposes of indoctrination.

Get back to me when you campaign to make Holder stop enlisting the aid of Black Churches and Clergy for the Administrations agenda.

Here's just one example.

Black Clergy and Lawmakers Unite to Protect Voter Rights

In lieu of what’s perceived as an alarming trend of new voter ID laws implemented around the country, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches plan to unite for a faith leaders summit next week detailing strategy on voter registration and voter protection.

Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at the summit which will take place at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington DC. Dr. Franklyn Richardson, the Chair of the Conference of National Black Churches and Dr. Jacqui Burton, President of the Conference, will also speak.

Black Clergy and Lawmakers Unite to Protect Voter Rights | Politic365

 

[tinydancer]

The churches have full protection from the government in their practices except one thing, the thing they really want, to make every law and candidate pass their piety test therefore making themselves a de-facto branch of government, that simply cannot be allowed. The wall of separation was never meant to protect churches and religious organizations from secular push-back as they try to gain secular political power.

If they gain political power it will be through the democratic process, they have as much right to do that as any special interest group.

Exactly. But it appears to the left wing whackos that it's alright for certain churches to be allowed to be involved in the political process but not other churches and clergy

 

[Wolfstrike]

the settlers of America were extremely religious but also persecuted for being religious minorities.
the founders of the nation , with some influence from masonic teachings, created a true neutral policy on religion.

problem 1, the king of England was also the head of the church.
problem 2, the states were each dominated by a Christian sect.

the goal of the first amendment was to solve these two problems by making sure people weren't persecuted.

the first amendment's statement that congress shall make no law prohibiting religion is more powerful then it's establishment statement.

the modern view that religion should not be seen or heard has no basis in the constitution

 

[williepete]

Which is the better policy: The freedom of religion, or the freedom from it? Note that for the purposes of this thread, "freedom from religion" refers ONLY to the banning of some, most, or all religious expressions (including the wearing of religious symbols) in public, not the banning of religion entirely, while "freedom of religion" refers to the ability to freely teach, practice, worship, and proselytize in public.

Is a society better off if all religions have a place at the shouting match, or if none of them do? Should certain religions or certain forms of religious expression, be banned in particular, while the rights of other religions or expressions thereof are protected? Discuss.

Completely missed the fourth grade? Or were they too busy teaching "Geoff and his Two Dads"?

Really? I mean Really?! Banned. By who? And by what means?

What you're talking about is getting rid of the 1st Amendment. This is a fourth grade civics discussion. And a short one! Is America now so stupid that it doesn't know the "5 Freedoms" protected by the 1st Amendment? Congratulations public "education".

Do the establishment clause and the free exercise clause ring any bells with any of you former fourth grade students?

If you forgot or you were too busy watching Honey Boo Boo or Dancing With The Stars, here's a news flash: You are protected from any form of religion being established by your government and you are free to exercise whatever religion you wish.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is the better policy: The freedom of religion, or the freedom from it?

...

Discuss.

Who specifically with any audience or political power actually advocates freedom FROM religion?

 

[westwall]

The only acceptable mode of religious freedom is the freedom from religion; to institute a freedom of religion would be to allow the tyranny of global patriarchy to reign alongside civil government, and to allow their oppressive, abusive attitudes toward womyn and minorities to pervade every aspect of lyfe unfettered.

Ban all religion and you automatically solve the majority of the wyrld's problems--violence, poverty, discrimination, and so on.

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

Yes, I do know that. However, when the correlation is 100%...... it makes one wonder. Taken further, those laws could only be placed into effect in the case of a dictatorship....and dictatorships are threatened by religion so it is a natural progression for the dictators to eliminate as many threats as possible. So I think it is inevitable that atheistic dictatorships will murder mass quantities of people.

 

[PratchettFan]

Which is the better policy: The freedom of religion, or the freedom from it? Note that for the purposes of this thread, "freedom from religion" refers ONLY to the banning of some, most, or all religious expressions (including the wearing of religious symbols) in public, not the banning of religion entirely, while "freedom of religion" refers to the ability to freely teach, practice, worship, and proselytize in public.

Freedom of religion or Freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

In December 2003, President Jacques Chirac decided to act on the part of the Stasi report which recommended banning conspicuous religious symbols from schools. This meant that the legislature could adopt the recommendations, according to the emergency procedure, in January or February, ready for application at the start of the next school year in September 2004.

In order to enforce the law, effective decisions whether certain items are "ostentatious" or not will have to be taken. In order to achieve that:

the Minister of Education will issue circulaires, or instructions for its services; it seems that large crosses, full hijabs or yarmulkes would be banned, while small symbols such as small Stars of David or crosses in pendants would not be;
headmasters will have to judge whether particular attire is or not acceptable with respect to the law;
if necessary, families will go to administrative courts to challenge the school authorities' decision; a final decision may not be reached until the Conseil d'État at litigation (supreme administrative court), decides some points of jurisprudence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Is a society better off if all religions have a place at the shouting match, or if none of them do? Should certain religions or certain forms of religious expression, be banned in particular, while the rights of other religions or expressions thereof are protected? Discuss.

Both. There should be no restrictions on anyone's right to express their religious beliefs. There does need to be some restrictions on the practice of religion. And the government should be neutral on the subject. Freedom from religion means it is not imposed by governmental authority.

 

[Freewill]

To me the term "freedom from religion" means that our laws should be free from narrow religious influence, it also means that religious folks are free to do every thing their faith requires except directly participate in politics as an organized group or use the mechanism of government for the purposes of indoctrination.

Now here I was going to say that your belief system that it should be excluded from the Public discourse.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Really? How did that work for that progressive wonderland Soviet Russia? After 80 million dead they allowed religion to be practiced again and adopted more free market policies than even the US enjoys currently.

Atheism clearly failed in that respect. Let's see...it failed in China and Cambodia too. Managed to murder a shitload of people though. So I guess if that's your goal then yeah, banish religion. See how long you get to live then...

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

Yes, I do know that. However, when the correlation is 100%...... it makes one wonder.

Post the statistics you used to come up with a correlation coefficient of 100% in "abolition of all religion to mass deaths," and describe how such a coincidence "making one wonder" would equate to an undeniable fact.

Taken further, those laws could only be placed into effect in the case of a dictatorship....

Nope. Any forward-thinking lybyryl democracy could institute them as well.

and dictatorships are threatened by religion

Nope. There are plenty of examples of all religious views aside from those of the regime being outlawed. See: Church of England, the Vatican, the House of Saud, etc.

so it is a natural progression for the dictators to eliminate as many threats as possible. So I think it is inevitable that atheistic dictatorships will murder mass quantities of people.

Your faulty conclusion is based upon a false premise that you concocted to fit your own warped wyrld view, so it's no surprise that you, as an atheist hater, would believe that atheism leads to mass murder. In reality, it doesn't. Atheism is the single most non-violent thing you can adhere to, besides science. And protip: Neither are examples of a religion. That's why they're so non-violent. It's religion, not atheism, that inevitably leads to violence. If you disagree, do name for me a single country with an official state religion that has never gone to war.

 

[westwall]

Correlation does not equal causation. I thought you knew that.

Yes, I do know that. However, when the correlation is 100%...... it makes one wonder.

Post the statistics you used to come up with a correlation coefficient of 100% in "abolition of all religion to mass deaths," and describe how such a coincidence "making one wonder" would equate to an undeniable fact.



Nope. Any forward-thinking lybyryl democracy could institute them as well.

and dictatorships are threatened by religion

Nope. There are plenty of examples of all religious views aside from those of the regime being outlawed. See: Church of England, the Vatican, the House of Saud, etc.

so it is a natural progression for the dictators to eliminate as many threats as possible. So I think it is inevitable that atheistic dictatorships will murder mass quantities of people.

Your faulty conclusion is based upon a false premise that you concocted to fit your own warped wyrld view, so it's no surprise that you, as an atheist hater, would believe that atheism leads to mass murder. In reality, it doesn't. Atheism is the single most non-violent thing you can adhere to, besides science. And protip: Neither are examples of a religion. That's why they're so non-violent. It's religion, not atheism, that inevitably leads to violence. If you disagree, do name for me a single country with an official state religion that has never gone to war.

No democracy could institute such a law. There are far too many people of faith to allow such a law to be passed no matter how "forward thinking" you might think them to be. As far as the evidence to support my thinking I merely respond with look at the historical record. It speaks for itself.

Atheism is possibly non-violent. Christianity is likewise a non-violent religion, as is Buddhism, etc. However it is the PEOPLE practicing those religions and atheism that commit the murders....NOT the religion.

 

[Erand7899]

This is absolutely backward reasoning that can only be seen coming from conservatards.

It isn't government that needs to be thrown out of the marriage issue, it's religion. Religion has NO PLACE telling me who I can and cannot marry--not that I would ever choose to marry as it is a form of slavery, even when done in glorious lysbyyn union, but that's best saved for another discussion.

Marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. It is a contract between two or more pyrsyns that spells out ryghts and oblygations, just like any other contract. Fundamentalist Christ-stains took over the institution of marriage unjustly and unlawfully, and now they're furious that they're being made to relinquish their power of social engineering and surrender it back to We the Pyyple.

What utter nonsense! People were getting married religiously, long before government ever got involved in the institution.

Prove it.

When we get the government out of marriage, then the gays, transsexuals, Mormons, and those who want to marry their dogs, can marry at will.

Nonsense. That will only happen when we get religion out of marriage. Am I right, or can you name a church that would accept a dog-humyn marriage?

Vigilance: Why Does the Government Regulate Marriage?

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners. Taking Marriage Private (by Stephanie Coontz, professor of history at Evergreen State College and author of Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.)