Religous Freedom is so dead

[bodecea]

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Everyone in this country, the United States, has religious freedom. They can think and worship any deity they wish. It really isn't that complicated.
Those who are trying to grind the axe of their rights of religious freedom are making up situations that do not apply to their freedoms being diminished.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Easy rule of thumb:

If you are doing something as a Christian in public that you would go apeshit over a Muslim doing in public.....stop doing it. Just like we used to tell guys in Sexual Harassment Training in the Navy. If you wouldn't want some guy to say or do that to your wife, your daughter, your sister, your mother......stop doing it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys, the religious domination by the far right of public America is over.

 

[Dot Com]

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Everyone in this country, the United States, has religious freedom. They can think and worship any deity they wish. It really isn't that complicated.
Those who are trying to grind the axe of their rights of religious freedom are making up situations that do not apply to their freedoms being diminished.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Your application for martyrdom is denied on the grounds that such shrill, melodramatic whining has all the dogs in my neighborhood barking.

good post

What is OP whining about that he can't pray at the DMV or the Post Office?

 

[emilynghiem]

Where?

They have not real response to specific questions. Only innuendo

Right to worship as you please.

Not "right to worship in a building only."

What are you talking about?

Don't bother. You are going to either be told you are stupid, or a caca head, or some other childish non argument.

Where?

They have not real response to specific questions. Only innuendo

Right to worship as you please.

Not "right to worship in a building only."

What are you talking about?

Don't bother. You are going to either be told you are stupid, or a caca head, or some other childish non argument.

There is no innuendo, it's just mindless contradiction.

Where you ask? In every post you ever make. If you can't explain why you are correct you aren't.

Dear Inevitable: I was losing track whether you were addressing koshergrl or Carla_Danger.
I agree when you spell out what is the problems such as "mindless contradiction" or just objecting for the sake of objecting without explaining what is the problem. That is well-stated and what I love about you.

But when you call someone a gorilla, that is a personal emotional-based response
and that is equally "not explaining what the problem is."

Especially if you think the person is "not intelligent enough" to discern, why would you confuse them more, by mixing your articulate responses with the same namecalling? Why would you stoop to their level, especially if you are complaining about not spelling it out. How would you expect them to do any different, if you go back and forth also?

If this is out of frustration, I understand, we all can blow up on here.
But if even you, who is so articulate, can be caught stooping to namecalling,
surely you can understand that people less capable are going to respond that way emotionally
if you and I even do it when we get pushed past our limits and patience.

If you and I KNOW that others are more likely to respond emotionally first with blind objections,
and then have to WORK to spell out what is the exact grievance,
sure we should be MORE patient.

We are going to frustrate them also, when we ask them to clarify, and they aren't used to going there.

Inevitable, I hope you can see that you can be a powerful influence by asking them to think it through,
helping them walk through it, and not insulting them as "gorillas" when they fail.

This isn't easy stuff.

There are post-doctoral published professors who can't get this straight.

And we are asking average people, who are used to slamming back and forth online,
to stop and think about what is the real issue underneath.

You may look at some of these members as "less intelligent" and "unable to debate"
but I see the same people get points right, based on intuitive YES and NO,
where other people "overanalyze" and MISS the simple YES/NO questions
by going off into relative this and that, and talking past the question. So that isn't wise either.

Inevitable, I believe we need BOTH -- we need people like you who can analyze
and discern and clarify, and we need the types who just go by intuition and can
say YAY or NAY. We need referees who just nix things if they go out of bounds.
And then it's up to the analysts to find out why, and how to fix it. And if we find
the right answers, we will get an unconditional YES out of the same people who before said NO.

Sometimes they CAN'T tell us what it is, and it takes other people to step in and help figure it out.

So we need each other.

Please see below for example of where it doesn't always help to be able to analyze
and distinguish differences, or you can miss the whole point. So both TYPES need to help
keep each other in check.

Please keep this in mind so you don't lose patience when you run across your opposites.
Because you are not like them, that is why it is critical that they maintain relations with you
so you can help each other. Please don't cut these off, or discourage attempts to communicate.

I think you are a good influence, if you just bear with it.

===================================================
For example, in the Ebola debate, some people got so caught up in the issue of
whether the media was hyping up the risks and deaths and danger, that many
were missing the SIMPLE point that Ebola is a level 4 pathogen and is dangerous BIOHAZARD
regardless if there is media hype or not. That is simple science, that if you look up
the precautions used in labs for handling Ebola, you will see much higher level
containment suits, decompression chambers, etc. that regular hospitals don't have.

so SOME of the people who got it right in ONE SHOT
were the people who didn't need to think about it, and debate it academically.

While some of the "smarter" people talked themselves into all kinds of circles AROUND the issue
without hitting the real key points. Some even missed it completely, 'overanalyzing' and comparing the rates or numbers of deaths from OBESITY to ebola, trying to say by those numbers X or Z kills more people, etc.

But that does not change the fact that we are talking about a contagious level-4 pathogen
that once it gets out and spreads, it can strain the medical resources and allow an epidemic to spread quickly,
killing people within days, where the dead bodies become the most contagious sources so the dangers escalate.

In that case, the people who took a more simple approach understood it faster.
So there are advantages sometimes where what is a weakness can be a strength,
and what is a strength can becomes a weakness.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ravi, if I had heard about this "holiday" when Bush initiated it I would have bitched then too.
The point of my OP is that the POTUS calls for students to celebrate their religious freedoms at school.
You nimrods are so uptight about any kind of religion touching a school you want to attack the religious rather than address your grievances toward the one that's telling people to do it in class.

So you're telling me that there can be no prayer in school except if the President tells you that you can on a certain day.


Got it

You didn't even read what I posted, did you?

Yes. I've been to the site as well.
I am now wondering when we get National Free Speech Day or National Right to Bear Arms Day

Again, I would recommend setting up days between December 15 and Christmas Day
to celebrate and teach the history of the First through Tenth Amendments, plus Amendment 14 on equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

Instead of complaining about Kwanzaa, add your own cultural celebration of universal principles.
These happen to be associated with the white European Founding Fathers who wrote out the Bill of Rights
based on philosophies on law and govt coming out of France, Britain, etc.

But since the Bill of Rights was historically ratified on Dec 15, we can set up a tradition
and count down the days to Christmas. Where equal justice or equality in Jesus
can be celebrated as either a secular principle of Restorative Justice or Equal Justice Under Law
in place of or in addition to whatever else people want to celebrate at the same time
about Christmas, Christ, Kwanzaa or whatever. We can add more, not compete or take away.

And let people choose freely and not be offended if someone prefers one tradition over another.

 

[boilermaker55]

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Everyone in this country, the United States, has religious freedom. They can think and worship any deity they wish. It really isn't that complicated.
Those who are trying to grind the axe of their rights of religious freedom are making up situations that do not apply to their freedoms being diminished.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

 

[koshergrl]

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

 

[boilermaker55]

Again, how is it repressing your freedom of speech?
One cannot make up false charges.
I hesitated to say this but you really are whining about nothing.

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

Dear boilermaker55:
The issue is really about whether we AGREE on the policy that is being mixed into public institutions.

For example, marriage was already mixed in with public law, although marriage involves other personal
beliefs and matters tied in. It is when we DISAGREED whether or not to include same-sex couples
that the issue of "separation of church and state" became unresolvable, because marriage already crossed the line.
When we agreed to just let it be, then nobody challenged this.
but it was still technically a violation by mixing state and personal/religious/spiritual/church matters.

Same with the death penalty that we have tolerated being under the state,
but can be argued to be a religious belief whether the state has such authority to take a life.
And some people don't agree to this, but haven't set up means for separating it out and taking responsiblity.
So in the meantime, we agree to stick with the default.

EXAMPLE of a religious concept engraved on a public building:
Equal Justice Under Law is engraved on the Supreme Court in DC.

But nobody has ever seen this so called "Equal Justice Under Law"
it is FAITH BASED.

We just happen to AGREE on this principle so we ALLOW it to be embedded in govt.

When we didn't dispute GOD then we agreed to let that be embedded in our laws and pledges and oaths.

It is when people DON'T agree, and DON'T consent, then it becomes disputed as a religious difference.

My point is, we have many areas where we HAVE let BELIEFS or faith-based concepts
mix in with our public institutions and govt.

It isn't a matter of REMOVING these, as the fix.

The issue is whether or not we AGREE. So the point is to resolve conflicts
and then we can decide how to manage these things.

The reason I see people trying to FORCE or DEFEND their beliefs
is when they feel they are being imposed on or rejected by the other beliefs.

So if we quit competing to coerce the other side, maybe this reaction would stop.

For example, with marriage laws, either write the laws so neutrally that neither
side feels excluded or imposed upon by the other. Or if it is found there is no way
to write the laws without stepping on one side or the other, then REMOVE marriage
altogether from the state and leave it personal with churches or private groups.
And just keep the contracts that all sides AGREE to manage through the state there.
If not, separate by state or party or some other means that doesn't impose on other taxpayers
of other beliefs. But quit imposing back and forth.

If the "anti-gay marriage" and the "pro-gay marriage" don't like the other side imposing
their views, why are they imposing theirs?

And it could be people agree to a compromise, and agree to keep it under the state.
But it should be by free choice, not by force. Such as agreeing that the death penalty is
being kept under the state, even though some people don't believe in that. So some things
are being compromised, and there isn't full religious freedom and separation of church and state for all cases.

If people can agree the state isn't perfect, and religious biases ARE creeping in,
maybe they will quit demanding perfect removal if that isn't always possible.

Frankly, I believe we are heading for a Constitutional convention or consortium on this
issue of beliefs and creed, and how to handle POLITICAL beliefs equally as religious,
when POLITICAL beliefs such as marriage and health care are crossing the line into govt.

It isn't just a matter of REMOVING these, because then we couldn't have ACA that is imposing
one side's BELIEFS about health care as a right through govt onto the rest of the nation
and even fining people for wanting free choice of paying for health care based on their own beliefs.

It becomes a matter of AGREEING how to handle the political beliefs, since one side NEEDS
them to go through govt in order to EXERCISE their beliefs health care should be done that way
to serve the public equally; and the other sides NEEDS to have health care managed by free choice
and liberty to choose whether or not to go through govt, without fear of penalty, in order to exercise
beliefs in God giving us our freedom, lives and health and not depending on govt to regulate those decisions.

These are EQUAL beliefs, so imposing one way on the other is unconstitutional and discriminating.

You cannot just REMOVE these beliefs from govt, since they both cross the line, and an AGREEMENT
is necessary to prevent from imposing one set of beliefs on the other and depriving people of their equal exercise.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, how is it repressing your freedom of speech?
One cannot make up false charges.
I hesitated to say this but you really are whining about nothing.

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

I may talk about my religion anywhere I please.

That includes in the public square.

 

[emilynghiem]

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

Dear koshergrl:
I must be an exception to your assertion.

I am a prochoice progressive, and I absolutely believe as a Constitutionalist
to stand up for the right of the prolife equally as the prochoice to exercise
and defend their beliefs from govt laws that would otherwise impose a bias against one or the other.

Maybe that is why I find myself as one of the few who defend your points
you are trying to express. I respect your free speech and free exercise of religion
(or free will and right to consent or dissent) equally as my own.

I believe the true progressives I have found are also aggrieved to be censored by partisan politics.
When I went to Green and Occupy meetings, many signs and activists all pointed out
the "polarization" in the media that was a form of manipulation and censorship.

Many besides me were asking to drop this mask and really allow the people
to overthrow the corporatized monopoly on the political process, and work
together in open forums to address each issue, hash out solutions, and organize around them.

The Tea Party is also trying to democratize the process and empower the people directly.

If we take the fear and division out of the way,
we can stop blocking our own free speech.

People on both sides are "afraid" the other side only wants to shut them down.
The only way to stop this, is to make sure we don't shut each other down or up.

So the same way I ask and try to help you bring out your points you are trying to make,
if we all do this, especially with those we oppose the loudest, we will all enjoy
greater freedom and protection of free speech. We get the standards we give.

If we want free speech, if we want the right to petition to redress grievances,
it starts by hearing each other's grievances, and empowering ourselves and each other.
We can be our own govt if we can solve our own problems directly.

if we keep cutting each other off, in large groups, then we keep depending
on "third party" entities to step in and control the decisions between the
two people or two groups who "aren't talking". We give our money to
lawyers and bullies to take advantage of conflict, while we still suffer from the problems not solved this way.

We are punishing ourselves,
abridging and blocking our own free speech and right to petition
by letting conflicts continue. If we resolve them, we can remove the source of pressures
that are censoring all of us from hearing each other's points and putting solutions together.

I can't speak for others who are playing the bullying games, and making profit off keeping that going.

I can just ask people who are SICK of being bulldozed over politically
to quit engaging in the same. Let's undo this pattern, and set a higher standard
and better example of the free speech, free press and right to petition to resolve grievances
that we want our GOVT to follow. This is where Occupy and Tea Party actually agreed.

If we can bring the extremes together, that means anyone can work together
who is somewhere in between on the political spectrum.

KG if you are far right, and I am far left, if I can work with you,
then it isn't impossible. Can we set a better example of how it should be done?

Thanks and keep up the good fight to break down the barriers.

We probably have more areas in common, that are more important anyway,
and we need to focus on those as solutions so others can try, too.

I believe it is often the far extremes on left and right, who are sick of
being censored by the mess in the middle, that come to respect each other as going through similar battles.

How can we change the dynamic and stop the mutual censorship and bullying back and forth?
If that drops, how much more free speech could we all enjoy if we take the fear and divisive barriers out of the way?

 

[emilynghiem]

Once again. You have to prove that someone has taken your right to worship from you. Tell us all how that you are being denied the ability to go to your house of worship and pray or do whatever it is you do.
So, therefore, you are the one full of hogwash.

"Religous Freedom is so dead"

Nonsense.

More Americans enjoy greater freedom to express their religious beliefs – or practice no religious beliefs at all – today than at any time in America's history.

Hogwash.

Dear boilermaker55:
I lost where the thread was talking about
if "religious freedom" means freedom to worship in private
and this is not abridged by insisting to keep it out of public institutions
because it still allows "freedom of worship" where it is personal.

This post is close enough, but I think someone objected
to REGULATING and restricting what is and what isn't included in religious freedom.

What about those people who BELIEFS involve govt and laws.

There is no way to limit their religious freedom by REMOVING it from govt
because that is already messing with it.

The only way out of such an imposing situation is to have an
AGREEMENT HOW to reconcile a policy, where neither the belief
imposes on the govt or public who don't share the belief
and can't be required to support it, and neither does the
govt or opposing citizens impose on the people of that belief.

Also BM55, how can you define what is or what is not
a protected religion without discriminating against those
who don't have such a membership?

In order to protect all people of all beliefs equally,
we'd have to listen to what THEIR beliefs are and not define them for them
or else that is imposing.

Where I might agree with you is if someone is contradicting their OWN
beliefs, they can't project that problem and blame on someone else.

So if you believe in religious freedom, you can't complain if someone
else's religious freedom contradicts yours. You can't ask for your
belief to be protected ABOVE theirs if you are asking for equality.

and that is the #1 reason I see people conflicting with each other.
Instead of recognizing each other's beliefs as valid, they seek
to exclude one or the other, so this is NOT equal protection.

So how can you enforce equal protection if you are not respecting that yourself?

That is why I believe this approach falls apart.

You can't just bulldoze the other viewpoint out of the equation to solve the problem.
We'd have to solve the problem, where it includes both viewpoints and doesn't impose on either one.

There are some areas, such as marriage and now health care,
where people's political beliefs are crossing the line between "separation of church and state."

So we need to recognize this is happening, and quit blaming one side or the other.
People cannot help having their beliefs, and cannot be forced to change them or be penalized by law for them.

but that's what is happening, with the ACA mandates
and with fines on people who don't believe in getting involved in gay marriage ceremonies.
They want the CHOICE to abstain, but are being forced BY LAW by PENALTY if they don't comply!

People are being punished and discriminated against for beliefs,
abusing laws and govt authority to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone in this country, the United States, has religious freedom. They can think and worship any deity they wish. It really isn't that complicated.
Those who are trying to grind the axe of their rights of religious freedom are making up situations that do not apply to their freedoms being diminished.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The above are examples of excessive government entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment, in no way interfering with religious practice or expression.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

OKAY boilermaker55
here's an example

1. when Tea Party groups organized to defend beliefs in Constitutionalism, which in comparison with beliefs in depending on govt for rights is a Political Religion,
they met with obstruction and harassment by political foes abusing the govt process to silence them.

One group vocally protested and sue over being denied ability to register
which was used as a delay tactic until after the elections.

This was clearly political censorship if you see what is going on.

So that is abridging the free speech of people in an organization because
of opponents to their Constitutional beliefs that govt was heading in the wrong direction
and needed to be held in CHECK by the people using the Constitution.

That political belief of the Tea Party was restricted and opposed by parties in govt
that wanted to silence and divide the opposition.

2. if you don't believe that was political, or don't believe that Constitutional beliefs constitute a religion or creed,
that deserves equal protection of the law,

then look at the examples I gave about
A. the ACA mandates and how people who believe in health care as a right through govt
and agree to buy insurance are given a TAX EXEMPTION while those who believe
in the God-given choice and responsibility to pay for our own health care through private sector decisions
are PENALIZED by taxes.

The people like at Hobby Lobby had to SUE to restore and defend their religious freedom.
So that is NOT FREE SPEECH if it costs TIME And RESOURCES to go through
Courts to "get it back after Congress passed a law restricting it."

Other people who DON'T have money to sue and win
DON'T have our freedom of religion restored yet.

We are still discriminated against by these mandates
because we don't have "free speech" to protest.

We can't reach the President and Judges while the
only way that is respected is through courts that AREN'T FREE.
They are loaded down with restrictive processes that cost
money to taxpayers and to individuals to navigate through.

I do have FREE SPEECH here to reach people.

So I am using this route to try to form a greater consensus on respecting beliefs
that were violated by this bill. If people here LISTEN to each other, we can have
free speech to fix it on this level, and then bring agreements and solutions we find
up to govt levels to try to make changes higher on up using pure "free speech" without lawsuits or legislation.

But if we keep going in circles, not respecting
the beliefs of others, then the govt system keeps dominating
that doesn't allow free speech, but has heavy restrictions on the process.

3. some other people brought up beliefs about legalization of marijuana.
If you talk back to the judge or police about your beliefs in free choice,
see if that is going to get you out of jail!

So that is another place people have been arguing that religious
freedom from the morals or beliefs of others imposing penalties by law,
is abridged -- their free exercise of religion and their free speech to defend themselves.

No matter what they say, the judge is going to enforce the laws that this is illegal.

So how can you call that free speech or free exercise of religion if it is talking to a wall.

These are some example where we don't fully have free speech
or equal freedom of religion, until there is a consensus on law;
until then, one side gets imposed on the other, and one side is deprived of equal protection of their
beliefs; and is forced to bear the burden of defending and restoring that freedom, so that
is not equal to the other side that doesn't have to bear that burden to exercise their beliefs.

This is why both sides complain about the other, they are both infringing on each other
in cases like these where political beliefs clash, and the govt is used to enforce one over the other.
Nobody wins this way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The above are examples of excessive government entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment, in no way interfering with religious practice or expression.

Okay C_Clayton_Jones
What about
A. the abuse of govt to harass taxpayers or block organization
whose Constitutional beliefs are opposed to the current administration

B. the abuse of Congress and Court to push the ACA mandates
that penalize citizens based on creed: if you don't believe govt has the right
to discriminate against taxpayers who don't buy insurance but want other
ways to pay for health care costs, you are still forced to pay taxes into
THAT system, not your own. So that is like making Muslims pay into
a Hindu system of health care that violates their beliefs, just because Hindus got their bill
passed through Congress and approved by the Court (even though they protested
and explained how this is against their beliefs at all times, before after and during).

If ignorance is the law is no excuse, what about ignoring the law?
Assuming the political beliefs of the opponents don't count because they are wrong
or the "majority would agree or benefit with the other beliefs." Is that any justification
for imposing one belief over another, because of majority or because you believe
your belief is right and superior and the other belief is wrong or you disagree?

How is that not discrimination by creed and abusing govt on several levels
to enforce such discriminatory taxes?

C. The threat by the President to keep vetoing bills that attempted
to RECTIFY this unconstitutional breach in policy.

How is that not abridging free speech and right of dissent?
and abusing govt authority to censor the dissenting beliefs of others,
representing half the nation.

Does any of that qualify to you as discriminating
by religion or creed and abusing govt to do so?

 

[boilermaker55]

You asked does this take away a right of religious freedom.
NO!

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

Dear koshergrl:
I must be an exception to your assertion.

I am a prochoice progressive, and I absolutely believe as a Constitutionalist
to stand up for the right of the prolife equally as the prochoice to exercise
and defend their beliefs from govt laws that would otherwise impose a bias against one or the other.

Maybe that is why I find myself as one of the few who defend your points
you are trying to express. I respect your free speech and free exercise of religion
(or free will and right to consent or dissent) equally as my own.

I believe the true progressives I have found are also aggrieved to be censored by partisan politics.
When I went to Green and Occupy meetings, many signs and activists all pointed out
the "polarization" in the media that was a form of manipulation and censorship.

Many besides me were asking to drop this mask and really allow the people
to overthrow the corporatized monopoly on the political process, and work
together in open forums to address each issue, hash out solutions, and organize around them.

The Tea Party is also trying to democratize the process and empower the people directly.

If we take the fear and division out of the way,
we can stop blocking our own free speech.

People on both sides are "afraid" the other side only wants to shut them down.
The only way to stop this, is to make sure we don't shut each other down or up.

So the same way I ask and try to help you bring out your points you are trying to make,
if we all do this, especially with those we oppose the loudest, we will all enjoy
greater freedom and protection of free speech. We get the standards we give.

If we want free speech, if we want the right to petition to redress grievances,
it starts by hearing each other's grievances, and empowering ourselves and each other.
We can be our own govt if we can solve our own problems directly.

if we keep cutting each other off, in large groups, then we keep depending
on "third party" entities to step in and control the decisions between the
two people or two groups who "aren't talking". We give our money to
lawyers and bullies to take advantage of conflict, while we still suffer from the problems not solved this way.

We are punishing ourselves,
abridging and blocking our own free speech and right to petition
by letting conflicts continue. If we resolve them, we can remove the source of pressures
that are censoring all of us from hearing each other's points and putting solutions together.

I can't speak for others who are playing the bullying games, and making profit off keeping that going.

I can just ask people who are SICK of being bulldozed over politically
to quit engaging in the same. Let's undo this pattern, and set a higher standard
and better example of the free speech, free press and right to petition to resolve grievances
that we want our GOVT to follow. This is where Occupy and Tea Party actually agreed.

If we can bring the extremes together, that means anyone can work together
who is somewhere in between on the political spectrum.

KG if you are far right, and I am far left, if I can work with you,
then it isn't impossible. Can we set a better example of how it should be done?

Thanks and keep up the good fight to break down the barriers.

We probably have more areas in common, that are more important anyway,
and we need to focus on those as solutions so others can try, too.

I believe it is often the far extremes on left and right, who are sick of
being censored by the mess in the middle, that come to respect each other as going through similar battles.

How can we change the dynamic and stop the mutual censorship and bullying back and forth?
If that drops, how much more free speech could we all enjoy if we take the fear and divisive barriers out of the way?

 

[boilermaker55]

Talk and posting a symbol of a religious belief are two entirely different entities.
Nice try.

Again, how is it repressing your freedom of speech?
One cannot make up false charges.
I hesitated to say this but you really are whining about nothing.

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

I may talk about my religion anywhere I please.

That includes in the public square.

 

[koshergrl]

Talk and posting a symbol of a religious belief are two entirely different entities.
Nice try.

Again, how is it repressing your freedom of speech?
One cannot make up false charges.
I hesitated to say this but you really are whining about nothing.

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

I may talk about my religion anywhere I please.

That includes in the public square.

That's what I thought. You have no conception of "freedom of speech".

 

[boilermaker55]

How utterly ridiculous can you get.
It seems you have the sarah palin syndrome or michele bachman one.
Nice try, again.

Talk and posting a symbol of a religious belief are two entirely different entities.
Nice try.

Again, how is it repressing your freedom of speech?
One cannot make up false charges.
I hesitated to say this but you really are whining about nothing.

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

I may talk about my religion anywhere I please.

That includes in the public square.

That's what I thought. You have no conception of "freedom of speech".

 

[koshergrl]

You have no concept of freedom of speech.

You people can't be taught.