What does religious freedom mean to You

[captkaos]

I would like to ask a simple question and get some feedback on a subject that may be controversial. The question is, which "religious freedoms are protected in the United States". I'll clarify, should any citizen of the United States be restricted from practicing their religious beliefs. For instance a man passes away and some of his descendants are say Devout Christians, another is agnostic and yet another is say a convert to Judaism, or Islam or any other religious sect or belief. The man is buried in accordance with the Law . His Burial ceremony is conducted in a manner that is not recognized by the other family members and friends or acquaintances. Should any law restrict how people conduct themselves during private graveside rituals or ceremonies according to their beliefs even if it means not recognizing the beliefs or rituals contrary to theirbeliefs while you visit. Should one groups beliefs be held above the others. I'm asking based on some video I've seen of people being video taped removing Decorations from cemetery gravesites and wondered if it could affect me or anybody else. it was disturbing. Most Cemetery's are privately owned or maintained by local Govt. Most are privately owned though. The Cemetery's rules give no preference to any group and a Multi denominational policy is portrayed and maintained.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The doctrine of religious freedom is a matter of law that concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed – where government is prohibited from promoting religious doctrine and dogma and may not place undue restrictions on religious practices.

It does not apply to private persons and entities, such as cemeteries.

 

[fncceo]

I would like to ask a simple question and get some feedback on a subject that may be controversial. The question is, which "religious freedoms are protected in the United States". I'll clarify, should any citizen of the United States be restricted from practicing their religious beliefs. For instance a man passes away and some of his descendants are say Devout Christians, another is agnostic and yet another is say a convert to Judaism, or Islam or any other religious sect or belief. The man is buried in accordance with the Law . His Burial ceremony is conducted in a manner that is not recognized by the other family members and friends or acquaintances. Should any law restrict how people conduct themselves during private graveside rituals or ceremonies according to their beliefs even if it means not recognizing the beliefs or rituals contrary to theirbeliefs while you visit. Should one groups beliefs be held above the others. I'm asking based on some video I've seen of people being video taped removing Decorations from cemetery gravesites and wondered if it could affect me or anybody else. it was disturbing. Most Cemetery's are privately owned or maintained by local Govt. Most are privately owned though. The Cemetery's rules give no preference to any group and a Multi denominational policy is portrayed and maintained.

A practicing Jew, or someone who comes from a practicing Jewish family, will be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Or, in the Jewish section of a larger cemetery.

This is also true of Muslims and other religious groups. Expect for Hindus, of course.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion.

 

[fncceo]

`
Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion.

It means freedom from a state sponsored religion.

I was never meant to protect you from the religious speech of private citizens.

 

[Windparadox]

It means freedom from a state sponsored religion.I was never meant to protect you from the religious speech of private citizens.

`
But it in a way it's the other side of the coin. With private citizens I can walk away, ignore it, avoid it, denigrate it, curse it, not listen to or view it. It's also called Freedom of Association. I'm protected both ways.

 

[sparky]

They'll be starting the next congressional session with prayer, even have their first Jesuit priest doing so>>>
Federal court upholds prayer in Congress
via>>>
Freedom From Religion Foundation - Freedom From Religion Foundation
apparently the 'establishment clause >>
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia
collides with the 'free exercise clause'>>
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

~S~

 

[sparky]

It means freedom from a state sponsored religion.I was never meant to protect you from the religious speech of private citizens.

`
But it in a way it's the other side of the coin. With private citizens I can walk away, ignore it, avoid it, denigrate it, curse it, not listen to or view it. It's also called Freedom of Association. I'm protected both ways.

Of interest would be Phelps V Snyder>
Snyder v. Phelps - Wikipedia

the sun shone brighter, coffee tasted better , etc when this ahol passed on

~S~

 

[Taz]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

 

[Moonglow]

`
Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion.

It means freedom from a state sponsored religion.

I was never meant to protect you from the religious speech of private citizens.

That is what ear plugs are for.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

 

[Taz]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

 

[Crepitus]

I would like to ask a simple question and get some feedback on a subject that may be controversial. The question is, which "religious freedoms are protected in the United States". I'll clarify, should any citizen of the United States be restricted from practicing their religious beliefs. For instance a man passes away and some of his descendants are say Devout Christians, another is agnostic and yet another is say a convert to Judaism, or Islam or any other religious sect or belief. The man is buried in accordance with the Law . His Burial ceremony is conducted in a manner that is not recognized by the other family members and friends or acquaintances. Should any law restrict how people conduct themselves during private graveside rituals or ceremonies according to their beliefs even if it means not recognizing the beliefs or rituals contrary to theirbeliefs while you visit. Should one groups beliefs be held above the others. I'm asking based on some video I've seen of people being video taped removing Decorations from cemetery gravesites and wondered if it could affect me or anybody else. it was disturbing. Most Cemetery's are privately owned or maintained by local Govt. Most are privately owned though. The Cemetery's rules give no preference to any group and a Multi denominational policy is portrayed and maintained.

That's not a religion question, it's a family feud.

 

[Taz]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

Sharia Law dispossesses women of all their rights. Rabbinical courts are rather unfair as well, and can be overturned by a real court.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

Sharia Law dispossesses women of all their rights. Rabbinical courts are rather unfair as well, and can be overturned by a real court.

Yes they can, hence my original statement about all parties having to agree to the results.

It's basically non-binding arbitration. If one side really gets butt hurt over a ruling, they still can go to the regular courts.

 

[Taz]

Freedom of religion doesn't really exist in the US, as Sharia Law is outlawed. So no freedom for Mooslims. No soup for them either!

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

Sharia Law dispossesses women of all their rights. Rabbinical courts are rather unfair as well, and can be overturned by a real court.

Yes they can, hence my original statement about all parties having to agree to the results.

It's basically non-binding arbitration. If one side really gets butt hurt over a ruling, they still can go to the regular courts.

So no real freedom of religion. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[martybegan]

Actually if all parties agree to it, sharia law could be applied via arbitration.

There are Rabbinical courts in NY that have existed for decades based on that concept.

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

Sharia Law dispossesses women of all their rights. Rabbinical courts are rather unfair as well, and can be overturned by a real court.

Yes they can, hence my original statement about all parties having to agree to the results.

It's basically non-binding arbitration. If one side really gets butt hurt over a ruling, they still can go to the regular courts.

So no real freedom of religion. Thanks for clearing that up.

So because you can't whip someone or chop off their hand, there is no freedom of Religion?

 

[Taz]

So they would allow hand chopping? Lashes? Stoning rape victims? ... Um... no.

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

Sharia Law dispossesses women of all their rights. Rabbinical courts are rather unfair as well, and can be overturned by a real court.

Yes they can, hence my original statement about all parties having to agree to the results.

It's basically non-binding arbitration. If one side really gets butt hurt over a ruling, they still can go to the regular courts.

So no real freedom of religion. Thanks for clearing that up.

So because you can't whip someone or chop off their hand, there is no freedom of Religion?

That's right!

 

[martybegan]

That isn't the only part of Sharia. It mostly involves family law when it comes to things like Rabbinical Courts, as well as business law.

Arbitration based Sharia Courts would be the same thing.

Sharia Law dispossesses women of all their rights. Rabbinical courts are rather unfair as well, and can be overturned by a real court.

Yes they can, hence my original statement about all parties having to agree to the results.

It's basically non-binding arbitration. If one side really gets butt hurt over a ruling, they still can go to the regular courts.

So no real freedom of religion. Thanks for clearing that up.

So because you can't whip someone or chop off their hand, there is no freedom of Religion?

That's right!

That's retarded.

All rights are balanced against the ability of the State to limit them in some way, it just places a higher burden on the State.

Removing someone's hand against their will via arbitration is something the State can have a say in, regardless of Religion or Religious freedom.