Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence

[Ringel05]

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

I don't know of this exposition. All I know is what's in the OP.

Anyhoo, I answered on the basis of how the social dynamics would manifest. That's more interesting.

Whatever floats you boat. To me it's a moot point, to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren it might be quite relative but by then we'll be long gone.

I'm reading it as a psychology question based on a hypothetical. Takes a suspension of reality.

You don't know about reality suspension? Very popular these daze.

Sure I do but this is a hypothetical subject that doesn't interest me and the OP is well know for his anti-religion stance, particularly anti-Christian religion stance. I view everything he posts concerning religion through that prism and I don't argue religion. As with "politics" it's mostly a waste of time.

OK whatever, I don't know about that "well-known" stuff so again I took it at face value.

Which I think is fair. I don't think OPs should come with baggage. I just take what it says up top. If he has an agenda, I'm sure he'll let us know.

Besides which, I don't see this as a thread about religion. I see it as an examination of how social dynamics work with "bans". Prohibition for example --- a thread on that would not be about drinking.

I'm not questioning your interest, just that I don't want to argue hypotheticals.

 

[daveman]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

 

[Mike Dwight]

Muslims and Catholics are chalk full of public adherence measures. Without it, these would not be the same religions. We're talking about 2 billion + in the religion world. Is that what you guys are referring to? 200 Holidays of marches and festivals and vigils and ceremonies to control and dictate and show public mass unity in the Roman Catholic tradition. There is 3 prayers a day for Islam.

So those can't co-exist that way. Otherwise there are schools of Religion complimentary to schools of philosophy and schools of physics and those religions have always been accommodating to the public sphere. Why not?

 

[bullwinkle]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

My first thought is that it wouldn't work. I doubt anybody can make logic out of the twisted minds of people who hate religious display of 'other' religions. I think much of it is simply a hatred of the hypocrisy of what some Christians say vs what some Christians do.

But there are many whose actions proclaim their faith. I'm thinking of Doctors Without Borders, or Special Olympic volunteers...soup kitchens, homeless shelters..all those nameless souls who show their religion without a word or reward.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Isn't Christ to bring "peace to the nations" as "King of Kings"? US Government will bring peace to the nations. How about that. You see, there's an autonomous local government that turns to the Holy US Government for scholars, diplomacy, freedom.

 

[zaangalewa]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Thoughts? ... I would say you don't have any idea what you try to speak about.

 

[ding]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

The intent of the establishment clause was to prevent the federal government from interfering with established state religions. Of which approximately half of the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

 

[ding]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

The original intent was to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion and thus interfere with state established religions of which half that states had at the time of the founding.

The spirit of the clause is that the federal government shall not interfere with the practice of religion by its citizens. Apparently state governments are free to do so as the 1st or 14th has never expressly forbid them to do so.

 

[ding]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

Why wouldn't the adherents of a religion be allowed to participate in secular processes or be allowed to discuss them in their congregations? Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

 

[impuretrash]

Multiculturalism breeds conflict. Want less conflict between rival ideologies and cultures? Stop forcing them to live side by side.

 

[BreezeWood]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say. Now I'm sure you will argue that point but everyone is entitled to their opinion....... As far as I'm concerned it's a matter for the courts to decide if any supposed religious entities are indeed churches or simply using the 1st Amendment to evade taxes.

.
Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say.

and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - despite what the tax laws might say.


the op is in error to suggest the ban does not already exist, allowing a nativity scene on public land is an establishment of a religion prohibited by the constitution ... tax law does not establish a religion it only defines its presence.

the 4th century christian bible established the - church of the roman empire - if that helps in your misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

 

[ding]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say. Now I'm sure you will argue that point but everyone is entitled to their opinion....... As far as I'm concerned it's a matter for the courts to decide if any supposed religious entities are indeed churches or simply using the 1st Amendment to evade taxes.

.
Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say.

and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - despite what the tax laws might say.


the op is in error to suggest the ban does not already exist, allowing a nativity scene on public land is an establishment of a religion prohibited by the constitution ... tax law does not establish a religion it only defines its presence.

the 4th century christian bible established the - church of the roman empire - if that helps in your misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

Again... in case you missed it. States are perfectly free to establish state religions.

 

[BreezeWood]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

The intent of the establishment clause was to prevent the federal government from interfering with established state religions. Of which approximately half of the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

.

The intent of the establishment clause was to prevent the federal government from interfering with established state religions. Of which approximately half of the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

that is not what the 1st amendment states - they wrote it as benign as possible for the time it was written in regards to religious persecution and victimization of the innocent as the true intent and purpose, good luck with your lackeys on the scotus ...

 

[ding]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

The intent of the establishment clause was to prevent the federal government from interfering with established state religions. Of which approximately half of the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

.

The intent of the establishment clause was to prevent the federal government from interfering with established state religions. Of which approximately half of the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

that is not what the 1st amendment states - they wrote it as benign as possible for the time it was written in regards to religious persecution and victimization of the innocent as the true intent and purpose, good luck with your lackeys on the scotus ...

Wrong. It was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions.

Understanding the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses - Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Think. Live Free.

 

[Pogo]

.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say. Now I'm sure you will argue that point but everyone is entitled to their opinion....... As far as I'm concerned it's a matter for the courts to decide if any supposed religious entities are indeed churches or simply using the 1st Amendment to evade taxes.

.
Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say.

and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - despite what the tax laws might say.


the op is in error to suggest the ban does not already exist, allowing a nativity scene on public land is an establishment of a religion prohibited by the constitution ... tax law does not establish a religion it only defines its presence.

the 4th century christian bible established the - church of the roman empire - if that helps in your misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

Again... in case you missed it. States are perfectly free to establish state religions.

And they're perfectly free to get those laws struck down if they do.

>> Pennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name "may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord's name". In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional.[1] On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page Opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[4] <<
​

The dates on that are stupefying and shows how long the Constitution has been ignored when it's convenient to ignore it.

 

[ding]

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say. Now I'm sure you will argue that point but everyone is entitled to their opinion....... As far as I'm concerned it's a matter for the courts to decide if any supposed religious entities are indeed churches or simply using the 1st Amendment to evade taxes.

.
Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say.

and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - despite what the tax laws might say.


the op is in error to suggest the ban does not already exist, allowing a nativity scene on public land is an establishment of a religion prohibited by the constitution ... tax law does not establish a religion it only defines its presence.

the 4th century christian bible established the - church of the roman empire - if that helps in your misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

Again... in case you missed it. States are perfectly free to establish state religions.

And they're perfectly free to get those laws struck down if they do.

>> Pennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name "may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord's name". In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional.[1] On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page Opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[4] <<
​

The dates on that are stupefying and shows how long the Constitution has been ignored when it's convenient to ignore it.

You do realize that at one time SCOTUS ruled that certain human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right?

Courts don't always do the right thing.

 

[GreatestIam]

No. It would make it worse.

When we isolate or taboo-ize a totem, we invest it with Power. When we expose it and overexpose it, we drain that Power.

Yet tabooing in France and other E U nations has worked so well that France now has a female imam run mosque that embraces unveiled women and gays. Gays that would normally be murdered and women Honor murdered.

That is success for all and not a failure.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

and what inquisitions need to end???

I thought they ended centuries ago???

Inquisitions and jihads are sent to control thinking and send it to a certain point of view by whatever means necesary.

I see that thought control trying to be exerted on better than half of the worlds population who are women and gays with religious homophobic and misogynous teachings discrimination and denigration.

The mainstream religions will not allow for the equality of gays and women and are trying to have them be second class citizens.

Regards
DL

 

[Pogo]

No. It would make it worse.

When we isolate or taboo-ize a totem, we invest it with Power. When we expose it and overexpose it, we drain that Power.

Yet tabooing in France and other E U nations has worked so well that France now has a female imam run mosque that embraces unveiled women and gays. Gays that would normally be murdered and women Honor murdered.

That is success for all and not a failure.

Regards
DL

I don't know any of that to be factual but I do know you've fatally conflated religion and culture there. So whatever the point was supposed to be here, didn't take.

Religion follows culture; not the other way 'round.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Well if you're an American that hadn't seen Star Wars... then... Light and Dark... Skywalker. We can see how this is necessary moral enforcement.