CDZ Religious freedom

[hadit]

We've freedom of, not from religon Tom , the only hedge against our courts being thrown down some religmo rathole is our constitution declares gub'mit secularism

Even though we've sorts that'll claim it's morality is a celestial manifesto

~S~

Wrong.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom from religion – where religious doctrine and dogma may not be codified into secular law all must obey; where government is prohibited from establishing a sanctioned state religion; and where government is prohibited from seeking to promote or advance religious dogma in preference to other religions or being free from religion altogether.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom to practice a given religion or practice no religion at all; government is prohibited from rendering a religion illegal, or subjecting religious adherents to criminal prosecution, or compelling the observation of a particular religion through force of law.

Rubbish. The clause only prevents the Federal govt. from favoring one sect over another. Many states had their own established religion, usually the sect that founded the colony. Massachusetts was the last state to dis-establish its state sponsored church, in 1833 or so. the driving impetus was huge changes in the states' demographics, not the 1st Amendment. There is no 'freedom from religion' in the original intent. The clause is itself a key platform of the Baptist sect, not some 'Enlightenment' philosophy; the Baptists invented the clause.

Dude.... just 'cause people keep doing it wrong, doesn't mean that The Constitution is flawed, it means that religion in general and Christianity in particular have held way too much political power in this country for far too long.

For example: Freedom of religion means that ALL of the venues dedicated too the worship industry pay property taxes. Nowhere in The Constitution does it say that the worship wing of the entertainment industry should get any tax breaks. Churches in America will never experience true freedom until they're free to pay their taxes.

`​

And, of course, when they pay taxes even conservative churches will be free to advocate for candidates from the pulpit, not just those that support democrats.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Does religious freedom extend to Sharia Courts ?

If you have the freedom to refuse service because of your beliefs should others have the freedom to manage their affairs in accordance with their religious beliefs ?

Is religious freedom absolute or just for your religion ?

My own view is that we live in secular states and that the laws protect all of us. Religious freedom stops when it washes up against this. Whatever the religion. The law is the thing and if you dont [sic] like the law vote to change it.

 

[Penelope]

religion influencing your political system.

That remains to be seen and I live in the US.

Honestly, hatred of religion is far more influential in your party, than the Christian influence is in mine. We're not running around insisting that God be present in all aspects of our government, near as much as the left is insistent on removing all references to Him.

To "HIM" now that means God (by the way , which God) is a male. ?? 2 questions:
Is God a male?
Which God?

 

[Penelope]

We've freedom of, not from religon Tom , the only hedge against our courts being thrown down some religmo rathole is our constitution declares gub'mit secularism

Even though we've sorts that'll claim it's morality is a celestial manifesto

~S~

Wrong.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom from religion – where religious doctrine and dogma may not be codified into secular law all must obey; where government is prohibited from establishing a sanctioned state religion; and where government is prohibited from seeking to promote or advance religious dogma in preference to other religions or being free from religion altogether.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom to practice a given religion or practice no religion at all; government is prohibited from rendering a religion illegal, or subjecting religious adherents to criminal prosecution, or compelling the observation of a particular religion through force of law.

government is prohibited from rendering a religion illegal, or subjecting religious adherents to criminal prosecution, or compelling the observation of a particular religion through force of law.

>>>>>

On National Day of Prayer, Trump establishes new faith-based initiative

as well as all the non profits which are think tanks.

 

[JGalt]

religion influencing your political system.

That remains to be seen and I live in the US.

Honestly, hatred of religion is far more influential in your party, than the Christian influence is in mine. We're not running around insisting that God be present in all aspects of our government, near as much as the left is insistent on removing all references to Him.

To "HIM" now that means God (by the way , which God) is a male. ?? 2 questions:
Is God a male?
Which God?

There's only one God. The God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus who was crucified on the cross to take upon Himself all of the world's sin, including yours.

Any other so-called "god" is nothing but false religion, apostasy, sorcery, or idolatry.

 

[well named]

There's only one God. The God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus who was crucified on the cross to take upon Himself all of the world's sin, including yours.

Any other so-called "god" is nothing but false religion, apostasy, sorcery, or idolatry.

Apropos of nothing: I love the internet. Where else could you find someone proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ and denouncing false gods while posting under the name of a fictional character who ranted that the true virtues were those rejected by Christians as sin, given voice by an author who was a committed atheist

It definitely captures something interesting about the intersection of modern American Christianity and political conservatism.

 

[Picaro]

We've freedom of, not from religon Tom , the only hedge against our courts being thrown down some religmo rathole is our constitution declares gub'mit secularism

Even though we've sorts that'll claim it's morality is a celestial manifesto

~S~

Wrong.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom from religion – where religious doctrine and dogma may not be codified into secular law all must obey; where government is prohibited from establishing a sanctioned state religion; and where government is prohibited from seeking to promote or advance religious dogma in preference to other religions or being free from religion altogether.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom to practice a given religion or practice no religion at all; government is prohibited from rendering a religion illegal, or subjecting religious adherents to criminal prosecution, or compelling the observation of a particular religion through force of law.

Rubbish. The clause only prevents the Federal govt. from favoring one sect over another. Many states had their own established religion, usually the sect that founded the colony. Massachusetts was the last state to dis-establish its state sponsored church, in 1833 or so. the driving impetus was huge changes in the states' demographics, not the 1st Amendment. There is no 'freedom from religion' in the original intent. The clause is itself a key platform of the Baptist sect, not some 'Enlightenment' philosophy; the Baptists invented the clause.

Dude.... just 'cause people keep doing it wrong, doesn't mean that The Constitution is flawed, it means that religion in general and Christianity in particular have held way too much political power in this country for far too long.

For example: Freedom of religion means that ALL of the venues dedicated too the worship industry pay property taxes. Nowhere in The Constitution does it say that the worship wing of the entertainment industry should get any tax breaks. Churches in America will never experience true freedom until they're free to pay their taxes.

`​

More rubbish. They knew what they were doing when they wrote the Amendment, and we know what they meant by it. And, tax laws can't be applied to religious institutions, because of the clause. Of course deviants and socipaths feel they have 'too much power', since they oppose mindless idiotic self-indulgence and mentally ill sex fetishes.

 

[well named]

And, tax laws can't be applied to religious institutions, because of the clause.

This isn't actually true. Churches are only exempt from taxes if they are organized under 501(c)(3) rules, just like any other charitable organization (see here). Non-501(c)(3) churches would have to pay taxes, if they had revenues. There are no court precedents which interpret the establishment clause as forbidding taxation of churches.

 

[martybegan]

Does religious freedom extend to Sharia Courts ?

If you have the freedom to refuse service because of your beliefs should others have the freedom to manage their affairs in accordance with their religious beliefs ?

Is religious freedom absolute or just for your religion ?

My own view is that we live in secular states and that the laws protect all of us. Religious freedom stops when it washes up against this. Whatever the religion. The law is the thing and if you dont like the law vote to change it.

Sharia courts in the US only have power if all parties involved agree to use them and be bound by their decisions. If any party involved doesn't like it, they can always go to the government courts, which override any mediation structure created between other parties.

There have been Rabbinical courts in the US for centuries, and they work just fine, and people have no issue with them, because they know they are voluntary to use, and they are still beholden to the government court system.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Does religious freedom extend to Sharia Courts ?

If you have the freedom to refuse service because of your beliefs should others have the freedom to manage their affairs in accordance with their religious beliefs ?

Is religious freedom absolute or just for your religion ?

My own view is that we live in secular states and that the laws protect all of us. Religious freedom stops when it washes up against this. Whatever the religion. The law is the thing and if you dont like the law vote to change it.

Sharia courts in the US only have power if all parties involved agree to use them and be bound by their decisions. If any party involved doesn't like it, they can always go to the government courts, which override any mediation structure created between other parties.

There have been Rabbinical courts in the US for centuries, and they work just fine, and people have no issue with them, because they know they are voluntary to use, and they are still beholden to the government court system.

Its the same over here.Although I think that some folk believe thatt hey are chopping hands off.

 

[Tilly]

Knowing that you live in the UK, you don't have anything equivalent to our American First Amendment right of freedom of religion or the prevention of religion influencing your political system.

All I can say is, enjoy the Sharia Law that's going to overtake your country. Just be sure to call us if it gets too much for you. We bailed your asses out twice already in WW1 and WW2, a third time would be easy-peazy.

We already have shariah courts in the U.K., so who does Tammy think he’s kidding?

 

[Correll]

Knowing that you live in the UK, you don't have anything equivalent to our American First Amendment right of freedom of religion or the prevention of religion influencing your political system.

All I can say is, enjoy the Sharia Law that's going to overtake your country. Just be sure to call us if it gets too much for you. We bailed your asses out twice already in WW1 and WW2, a third time would be easy-peazy.

Easy-peazy to say no.

 

[Tilly]

religion influencing your political system.

That remains to be seen and I live in the US.

Religion is no big deal in the UK. Its not something that people are comfortable discussing , and those that do so are considered a bit odd.

Not true. We have new blasphemy laws to protect Islam from criticism - criticism aka ‘islamophobia’.

 

[sparky]

 

[sparky]

To the extent that laws like the RFRA lead to some patchwork of religious exemptions to other laws, I think that framework runs the risk of becoming incoherent at some point, even though I think the original intent of the law to protect various Native American practices was good. The law certainly creates some ambiguities: what is the criteria for determining that some practice legitimately constitutes the free exercise of religion? What are the criteria for determining which government interests may compel compliance with a law despite its burdens to some religious practice? The answers are always going to be somewhat arbitrary. I feel like there's at least some benefit to having a single unified secular legal order, and some cost to having (somewhat) separate legal regimes for people of differing religions, at least in the extreme.

On the other hand, in practice the application of the RFRA so far is not really that extreme, and it seems serviceable enough, despite those potential drawbacks. I disagreed with the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case but I'm not sure that's enough to want to throw out the entirety of that law. I'm mostly OK with the way the US courts go about evaluating the questions I asked about legitimate religious practice.

Also, there's a certain entertainment to be had in observing the way conservatives and liberals tend to apply similar principles in different contexts, and I'm not immune to that too re: my hesitation about RFRA. So in other contexts (like immigration) I tend to celebrate multiculturalism and I think there is a lot of value in a pluralistic, multi-ethnic society. I also tend to approve of the courts acting as arbiters of constitutional values in ways that go beyond textualism. Both of those should predispose me to approving of RFRA. On the other hand a lot of conservatives will emphasize the importance of assimilation and cultural homogeneity in the context of immigration, and are generally skeptical of the kind of role that the court plays with the RFRA in other contexts (other Civil Rights cases). But conservatives are now champions of the RFRA (which enshrines a certain multi-cultural requirement in the law, requiring a fairly vaguely defined type of judicial oversight) and secular liberals are skeptical of the law, mostly because we disapprove of the particular religious culture represented by Hobby Lobby. So I do enjoy that cognitive dissonance.

worth looking up>>>

What is RFRA and why do we care? - National Constitution Center

~S~

 

[Picaro]

And, tax laws can't be applied to religious institutions, because of the clause.

This isn't actually true. Churches are only exempt from taxes if they are organized under 501(c)(3) rules, just like any other charitable organization (see here). Non-501(c)(3) churches would have to pay taxes, if they had revenues. There are no court precedents which interpret the establishment clause as forbidding taxation of churches.

Wrong again. Churches don't have to incorporate. Go read the IRS guidelines, for one. Some incorporate their charities operations, as a matter of convenience, but they aren't required to. Some request a letter from the IRS stating they have tax deductible status, as a convenience for their donors who want to deduct donations from their tax returns without hassles from the IRS but aren't required to incorporate for that. Incorporation of charities is also convenient when buying stuff wholesale for distribution from companies; they usually need a tax number from organizations to sell wholesale, and for their donations as well. IRS's internal guidelines are not tax laws. They can't even think about an audit on a church without permission from higher ups.

You really don't know what you're talking about. When it comes to paying the ministers and employees, they all have to pay the same payroll and income taxes everybody else does, and in fact many ministers are paid as 'self-employed', which means they also pay their own SS out of their pockets, so they usually paying more taxes than most people pay.

 

[Picaro]

We've freedom of, not from religon Tom , the only hedge against our courts being thrown down some religmo rathole is our constitution declares gub'mit secularism

Even though we've sorts that'll claim it's morality is a celestial manifesto

~S~

Wrong.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom from religion – where religious doctrine and dogma may not be codified into secular law all must obey; where government is prohibited from establishing a sanctioned state religion; and where government is prohibited from seeking to promote or advance religious dogma in preference to other religions or being free from religion altogether.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment affords Americans freedom to practice a given religion or practice no religion at all; government is prohibited from rendering a religion illegal, or subjecting religious adherents to criminal prosecution, or compelling the observation of a particular religion through force of law.

Rubbish. The clause only prevents the Federal govt. from favoring one sect over another. Many states had their own established religion, usually the sect that founded the colony. Massachusetts was the last state to dis-establish its state sponsored church, in 1833 or so. the driving impetus was huge changes in the states' demographics, not the 1st Amendment. There is no 'freedom from religion' in the original intent. The clause is itself a key platform of the Baptist sect, not some 'Enlightenment' philosophy; the Baptists invented the clause.

Dude.... just 'cause people keep doing it wrong, doesn't mean that The Constitution is flawed, it means that religion in general and Christianity in particular have held way too much political power in this country for far too long.

For example: Freedom of religion means that ALL of the venues dedicated too the worship industry pay property taxes. Nowhere in The Constitution does it say that the worship wing of the entertainment industry should get any tax breaks. Churches in America will never experience true freedom until they're free to pay their taxes.

`​

And, of course, when they pay taxes even conservative churches will be free to advocate for candidates from the pulpit, not just those that support democrats.

the Civil Rights movement started in churches; wonder why they never attack all the pastors who led that movement. Most of these idiots think pastors and ministers aren't paying taxes and that's what they're sniveling about. They red it somewhere on the internetz, you know.

 

[Picaro]

Does religious freedom extend to Sharia Courts ?

If you have the freedom to refuse service because of your beliefs should others have the freedom to manage their affairs in accordance with their religious beliefs ?

Is religious freedom absolute or just for your religion ?

My own view is that we live in secular states and that the laws protect all of us. Religious freedom stops when it washes up against this. Whatever the religion. The law is the thing and if you dont like the law vote to change it.

Sharia courts in the US only have power if all parties involved agree to use them and be bound by their decisions. If any party involved doesn't like it, they can always go to the government courts, which override any mediation structure created between other parties.

There have been Rabbinical courts in the US for centuries, and they work just fine, and people have no issue with them, because they know they are voluntary to use, and they are still beholden to the government court system.

Its the same over here.Although I think that some folk believe thatt hey are chopping hands off.

Nah, they're just running pedophile rings and kidnapping and raping children, which is of course OK and of no concern to left wingers.

 

[AVG-JOE]

religion influencing your political system.

That remains to be seen and I live in the US.

Religion is no big deal in the UK. Its not something that people are comfortable discussing , and those that do so are considered a bit odd.

Not true. We have new blasphemy laws to protect Islam from criticism - criticism aka ‘islamophobia’.

That's fucking scary, right there!

Anti-blasphemy laws and Freedom of Speech are mutually exclusive to each other.

That's fucked up.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Qur'an is fictitious and all people who believe in Him are fools.

The day I can't say that in public, We, The Peeps, lose.