Freedom of religion

Discuss what? You haben't said anything.

I've said we don't live a theocracy. I've said that separation of church and state or religious freedom did NOT originate with Christians.

The concept of religious freedom predates Christianity to Third Century BC in India in Buddhist texts.

The fact that we do not live in a theocracy is not exactly breaking news, despite your attempts to convince me otherwise.

How do I know those texts are accurate? Can you provide evidence they were not rewritten centuries later to reflect newer, more progressive, ideas? After allk, if we are to believe the idiots like you, Christians rewrote the Old Testament to make it look like Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

Whatever. I don't care if you think the texts are accurate or not. They pre-date Christianity by three centuries and establish that freedom of religion was NOT a Christian concept as avatar claims.

Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Empire of ancient India by Asoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.
 
Last edited:
Far from being sectarian, Ashoka, based on a belief that all religions shared a common, positive essence, encouraged tolerance and understanding of other religions.

All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)
Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. Rock Edict Nb1 (S. Dhammika)
Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)
Edicts of Ashoka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jews migrated in great numbers to India during this time and enjoyed freedom from persecution. Bottom line. Christians claim they thought up freedom of religion when they didn't.

Buddhists are tolerant of other religions. The Puritans were not. They persecuted the Quakers.
 
Last edited:
I've said we don't live a theocracy. I've said that separation of church and state or religious freedom did NOT originate with Christians.

The concept of religious freedom predates Christianity to Third Century BC in India in Buddhist texts.

The fact that we do not live in a theocracy is not exactly breaking news, despite your attempts to convince me otherwise.

How do I know those texts are accurate? Can you provide evidence they were not rewritten centuries later to reflect newer, more progressive, ideas? After allk, if we are to believe the idiots like you, Christians rewrote the Old Testament to make it look like Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

Whatever. I don't care if you think the texts are accurate or not. They pre-date Christianity by three centuries and establish that freedom of religion was NOT a Christian concept as avatar claims.

Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Empire of ancient India by Asoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.

Isn't Ashoka the Great the guy that led vast armies to conquer India? I thought you said Buddhist never did things like that. Does that mean that you lied about Buddhists being non violent, or are you trying to claim Ashoka as a Buddhist now because he came up with a concept that has nothing to do with Buddhism that you happen to like?
 
KG is NOT talking about the latter.

Doesn't matter what anyone is talking about. It doesn't change the validity of my statement.

We are NOT a Christian nation. Christianity is not the official US religion. Christianity is the majority religion. Religious freedom is our basic tenet.
She never said we were. She said we never have had a state religion.

And, we haven't.

And, it doesn't matter what someone says about that, it doesn't change the fact that we never have had a state religion.

And, unless the trend continues to toss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out the window, we never will.

Fear is sometimes irrational.
 
Keeping state power and religious power separate constitutionally was one of the best thing the founders of the US did. Concentration of power is a dangerous thing and almost always attracts ambitious people eager to abuse it. The first amendment attempts to prevent political leaders from controlling people via religion, as well as preventing religious leaders from using law to strengthen their own power. It's not perfect, but so far it's prevented a theocracy despite the fact that our country is overwhelmingly Christian.

Now, if we could just keep economic power and political power separated in the same way...
 
Last edited:
Freedom of religion 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. The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" —is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.
Freedom of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This means we do not have a state religion.

Discuss.

Discuss what? You haben't said anything.

I've said we don't live a theocracy. I've said that separation of church and state or religious freedom did NOT originate with Christians.

The concept of religious freedom predates Christianity to Third Century BC in India in Buddhist texts.

Except the scripture i quoted from the Bible supporting religious freedom dates back to 1550-1200 B.C.

And honestly, Im sure the concept was around before then.
 
Government has been quite involved in the activities/business of the Church.

Unfortunately yes, where some have attempted to codify religious dogma, mostly in state and local governments, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Do you suppose all these subtle changes will ultimately grossly effect this freedom? A right guaranteed by the First Amendment.......

Only if the courts fail to adhere to the rule of law and allow further erosion of separation doctrine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top