Religion and the Establishment Clause

[Avatar4321]

The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

You seem to only see a danger in government getting involved in religion. There's also the concern over religion being involved in government. When so many churches have similar interests, the "marketplace of ideas" is limited and can present a danger to those who disagree.

And as the Founders argued, that concern is kept in check by those of opposing faiths and non-faiths.

And if they have similiar interests, than that would be the will of the people, wouldn't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?

Are religions thugs?

The issue isn’t so much guilt as the peril of becoming inconsistent.

It’s logical it infer that ‘supporting church initiatives to influence the political process’ would ultimately result in attempts to codify religious doctrine and dogma, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In its attempt to allow some manifestation of religion in the public sector, the Court has generally held that if an initiative has a purely secular intent, does not promote a religious outcome, and is free of excessive government ‘entanglement,’ such measures are allowed to stand. See: Lemon v Kurtzman (1971).

Consequently, religions can be ‘thugs’ when they indeed try to enact laws based on religious tenets.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

The Republic is subject to the rule of law, not the rule of the majority – the United States is not a democracy. If a majority of Christians in a given jurisdiction, for example, elect to draft a policy or measure designed to advance a given tenet of Christian dogma, that policy or measure would be struck down as un-Constitutional, regardless the majority opinion.

And when a court strikes down such a policy or measure, it is not a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?

Are religions thugs?

Dear M: The main thing is to respect the consent of the governed and informed consent, to protect and include all interests equally, and not abuse collective authority/influence/resources (whether of the church, the state, corporations or any large institutions) to override the consent, due process and representation of individual interests.

So yes, we need to prevent imposition of the church/state on each other as well as on individuals, especially minority dissenters who could otherwise be bullied by political economic or physical force, while we also need to respect the inclusion of all religious and political views within the democratic process. We need to balance both: equal inclusion while also preventing imposition by a collective majority over dissenting minorites.

In First Amendment terms, we need to respect the free exercise (and expression) of religion but also prevent unlawful establishment of religious bias that discriminates against the rest of the public whose interests are to be equally protected and represented by laws.

In order to do both, I recommend decisions made by consensus, so that no one is either excluded nor imposed upon, but all views and interests are equally represented and protected. If consensus cannot be reached directly, the parties should agree to find ways to "separate" their policies where they can each fund and support equal choices without imposing on the other alternatives.

This may sound like a lot of work, but the laws say what they say, and if they state not to discriminate against any person within state jurisdiction then we have to meet that standard.

 

[Intense]

Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?

Are religions thugs?

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[Money]

Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?

Are religions thugs?

The issue isn’t so much guilt as the peril of becoming inconsistent.

It’s logical it infer that ‘supporting church initiatives to influence the political process’ would ultimately result in attempts to codify religious doctrine and dogma, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In its attempt to allow some manifestation of religion in the public sector, the Court has generally held that if an initiative has a purely secular intent, does not promote a religious outcome, and is free of excessive government ‘entanglement,’ such measures are allowed to stand. See: Lemon v Kurtzman (1971).

Consequently, religions can be ‘thugs’ when they indeed try to enact laws based on religious tenets.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

The Republic is subject to the rule of law, not the rule of the majority – the United States is not a democracy. If a majority of Christians in a given jurisdiction, for example, elect to draft a policy or measure designed to advance a given tenet of Christian dogma, that policy or measure would be struck down as un-Constitutional, regardless the majority opinion.

And when a court strikes down such a policy or measure, it is not a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause.

In many ways, the government and religions are redundant to one another. For that reason, they are juxtaposed in a sort of competition. This is where determination of law from public origin or of a religious tenet is at difficult assessment to make.In this competition, the law has taken an exception to competing directly with religions. Religions seem to take liberties in competing with government. The inconsistency is built-in.

 

[Money]

Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?

Are religions thugs?

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

I like Madison's "prudent jealousy" here. I think this is also an emotion which religions exert upon citizens of a nation/members of the congregation. Of course, government has taken upon itself to bow out of competition with religious groups by way of the establishment clause. Do religions have an obligation to respect their host government by bowing out of competition for political influence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

Avatar, I see there being a couple impetus for the establishment clause. Firstly, it's pretty obvious that the founders did not want to have a national religion in the sense of the Church of England. It is also reasonable to presume that the founders were concerned with the issue that created the Church of England in the first place: that external religious influence, say from the Pope or from the King of England, might be barred from having an impact on domestic politics.

Just about everything permissible under the boundaries of our democratic process is fair play. But even granted that, working for religious interests to have an influence on politics does draw a disconnect for me vis-a-vis my value of the separation implied by the establishment clause. It at least makes it one-sided.… only a government obligation.

The reason it is one sided is to prevent the government from suppressing anyone. The Constitution does not prohibit any group from trying to influence the government because it is designed to restrict the government, not the people. In fact, it specifically allows anyone to stand up and agitate for their viewpoint, and even to demand that the government recognize it. You might not think that is fair, but fair is not always a desirable goal.

 

[LOki]

No it does not, and only a bigot would try to argue it does.

No. Only a bigot--most particularly bigots cut from Abrahamic rock chucking cloth--would insist that it is otherwise.

If you have freedom from religion that means I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard because it hurts your inferior mind to be reminded that other people have faith in things that are bigger than themselves. Since that is obviously not the case, I am not the one that is wrong.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

No one but the retarded strawmen constructed by the inferior minds of the superstitious really assert that freedom from religion means that there's a protected right to deny the fact of reality that religion exists in reality. Inevitably, those whose righteous certainties are based solely upon their belief they are right, are demonstrated to be the ones whose minds are so gravely hurt by the reminders that others hold different beliefs--they are hurt all the more deeply when confronted by those beliefs inconsistent with their faith that are less consistent with superstitious fairy tales and more consistent with reality.

In the context of the U.S. Constitution (which s what we've been discussing), freedom from religion does not mean I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard, or that you cannot have your religious diorama on your own front lawn. It does however mean that the government is obligated to protect my freedom from religion from religious expressions as suicide bombings, public stonings, and other intolerances potentially ("explicitly", in the case of Abrahamic traditions) mandated by religion(s). Keeping a religion that denies the existence of rights--in favor of bloodthirsty sadism, torture, and human misery--constitutionally isolated from the coercive powers of government is nothing less than assertion of a person's right to be free from another person's religion.

Hence, freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. Only bigots demand otherwise.

 

[Intense]

No. Only a bigot--most particularly bigots cut from Abrahamic rock chucking cloth--would insist that it is otherwise.

If you have freedom from religion that means I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard because it hurts your inferior mind to be reminded that other people have faith in things that are bigger than themselves. Since that is obviously not the case, I am not the one that is wrong.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

No one but the retarded strawmen constructed by the inferior minds of the superstitious really assert that freedom from religion means that there's a protected right to deny the fact of reality that religion exists in reality. Inevitably, those whose righteous certainties are based solely upon their belief they are right, are demonstrated to be the ones whose minds are so gravely hurt by the reminders that others hold different beliefs--they are hurt all the more deeply when confronted by those beliefs inconsistent with their faith that are less consistent with superstitious fairy tales and more consistent with reality.

In the context of the U.S. Constitution (which s what we've been discussing), freedom from religion does not mean I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard, or that you cannot have your religious diorama on your own front lawn. It does however mean that the government is obligated to protect my freedom from religion from religious expressions as suicide bombings, public stonings, and other intolerances potentially ("explicitly", in the case of Abrahamic traditions) mandated by religion(s). Keeping a religion that denies the existence of rights--in favor of bloodthirsty sadism, torture, and human misery--constitutionally isolated from the coercive powers of government is nothing less than assertion of a person's right to be free from another person's religion.

Hence, freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. Only bigots demand otherwise.

It does however mean that the government is obligated to protect my freedom from religion from religious expressions as suicide bombings, public stonings, and other intolerances potentially ("explicitly", in the case of Abrahamic traditions) mandated by religion(s).

Not exactly. The act's when in violation of Civil Ordinance, or are Felonies, are prohibited regardless of whether their nature is Religious or not. If the Act causes harm, that is in effect enough, to confront it.

 

[konradv]

The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.

They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.

Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.

That is the whole point of the Republic.

You seem to only see a danger in government getting involved in religion. There's also the concern over religion being involved in government. When so many churches have similar interests, the "marketplace of ideas" is limited and can present a danger to those who disagree.

In Iran maybe.....not here.

Quit living in the past.

It's only "not here" because of vigilance. Like any other right it's not natural, but the result of people stepping forward and saying "you're going to far". I may be living in the past, but just look at the reaction whenever the religious right is told that. What would they do, if not challenged? Who's to say they wouldn't go as far as Iran? I don't want to find out.

 

[Intense]

You seem to only see a danger in government getting involved in religion. There's also the concern over religion being involved in government. When so many churches have similar interests, the "marketplace of ideas" is limited and can present a danger to those who disagree.

In Iran maybe.....not here.

Quit living in the past.

It's only "not here" because of vigilance. Like any other right it's not natural, but the result of people stepping forward and saying "you're going to far". I may be living in the past, but just look at the reaction whenever the religious right is told that. What would they do, if not challenged? Who's to say they wouldn't go as far as Iran? I don't want to find out.

The thing inside you, that screams against Injustice, does in fact suggest Natural Right exists.

 

[konradv]

In Iran maybe.....not here.

Quit living in the past.

It's only "not here" because of vigilance. Like any other right it's not natural, but the result of people stepping forward and saying "you're going to far". I may be living in the past, but just look at the reaction whenever the religious right is told that. What would they do, if not challenged? Who's to say they wouldn't go as far as Iran? I don't want to find out.

The thing inside you, that screams against Injustice, does in fact suggest Natural Right exists.

That's a human desire, perhaps, but in a state of nature there's no such thing. The only right you have, if I'm stronger than you, is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, hoping I'll leave you some scraps. For any other rights to exist anywhere but in the mind, some form of civil authority is necessary to force the strong not to take advantage of the weak.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Only a bigot--most particularly bigots cut from Abrahamic rock chucking cloth--would insist that it is otherwise.

If you have freedom from religion that means I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard because it hurts your inferior mind to be reminded that other people have faith in things that are bigger than themselves. Since that is obviously not the case, I am not the one that is wrong.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

No one but the retarded strawmen constructed by the inferior minds of the superstitious really assert that freedom from religion means that there's a protected right to deny the fact of reality that religion exists in reality. Inevitably, those whose righteous certainties are based solely upon their belief they are right, are demonstrated to be the ones whose minds are so gravely hurt by the reminders that others hold different beliefs--they are hurt all the more deeply when confronted by those beliefs inconsistent with their faith that are less consistent with superstitious fairy tales and more consistent with reality.

In the context of the U.S. Constitution (which s what we've been discussing), freedom from religion does not mean I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard, or that you cannot have your religious diorama on your own front lawn. It does however mean that the government is obligated to protect my freedom from religion from religious expressions as suicide bombings, public stonings, and other intolerances potentially ("explicitly", in the case of Abrahamic traditions) mandated by religion(s). Keeping a religion that denies the existence of rights--in favor of bloodthirsty sadism, torture, and human misery--constitutionally isolated from the coercive powers of government is nothing less than assertion of a person's right to be free from another person's religion.

Hence, freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. Only bigots demand otherwise.

Those are criminal acts, not religion.
Lenin was an atheist, and is responsible for more torture and killing than any religious extremist in history. Only nincompoops and extremists think either action has anything to do with religion, you fail again.

You do not have freedom from religion because that is a positive right in that it imposes an obligation on another person. All rights are negative, positive rights are something that people choose to offer to others because they are moral beings.

 

[Intense]

Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?

Are religions thugs?

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

I like Madison's "prudent jealousy" here. I think this is also an emotion which religions exert upon citizens of a nation/members of the congregation. Of course, government has taken upon itself to bow out of competition with religious groups by way of the establishment clause. Do religions have an obligation to respect their host government by bowing out of competition for political influence?

Why in God's name should Any Church bow out of Politics in matters of conscience. The Government is to censor Sermons now? Of course not. Churches officially involved in organized Protest? Maybe, in one sense as Individuals, who happen belong to a certain Church, should be viewed differently than the Church organizing something in It's name. Still, under the !st Amendment, Free Speech is Protected. Corrupting Principle, threatening removal of Tax Exempt Status, is an abuse of power. Still, you are free to counter demonstrate. That is what we are about. Picking and choosing who gets a pass here is arbitrary Justice and a corruption of principle.

 

[Photonic]

Allow me to ask one simple question to those who want religion to govern us.

Would you be willing to accept all religions equally?

 

[LOki]

If you have freedom from religion that means I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard because it hurts your inferior mind to be reminded that other people have faith in things that are bigger than themselves. Since that is obviously not the case, I am not the one that is wrong.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

No one but the retarded strawmen constructed by the inferior minds of the superstitious really assert that freedom from religion means that there's a protected right to deny the fact of reality that religion exists in reality. Inevitably, those whose righteous certainties are based solely upon their belief they are right, are demonstrated to be the ones whose minds are so gravely hurt by the reminders that others hold different beliefs--they are hurt all the more deeply when confronted by those beliefs inconsistent with their faith that are less consistent with superstitious fairy tales and more consistent with reality.

In the context of the U.S. Constitution (which s what we've been discussing), freedom from religion does not mean I cannot display my statue of Krishna in my front yard, or that you cannot have your religious diorama on your own front lawn. It does however mean that the government is obligated to protect my freedom from religion from religious expressions as suicide bombings, public stonings, and other intolerances potentially ("explicitly", in the case of Abrahamic traditions) mandated by religion(s). Keeping a religion that denies the existence of rights--in favor of bloodthirsty sadism, torture, and human misery--constitutionally isolated from the coercive powers of government is nothing less than assertion of a person's right to be free from another person's religion.

Hence, freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. Only bigots demand otherwise.

Those are criminal acts, not religion.

Not in a nation where one religion (particularly if we're talking about an Abrahamic tradition) is law, and other religions are crimes.

Lenin was an atheist, and is responsible for more torture and killing than any religious extremist in history.

A lie, and a violation of the 9th Commandment.

Only nincompoops and extremists think either action has anything to do with religion, you fail again.

Only extremist nincompoops believe that religion has any valid role to play in the foundation or function of government.

You do not have freedom from religion because that is a positive right in that it imposes an obligation on another person. All rights are negative, positive rights are something that people choose to offer to others because they are moral beings.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not in a nation where one religion (particularly if we're talking about an Abrahamic tradition) is law, and other religions are crimes.

Israel has public stoning and state sponsored suicide bombings? The Vatican? Turkey?



Talk about strawmen.

A lie, and a violation of the 9th Commandment.

It is neither, unless you are going to assert that Marxism is a religion.

Only extremist nincompoops believe that religion has any valid role to play in the foundation or function of government.

Can you point out where I said anything like that?

Didn't think so.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

No I am not, I am pointing out the logical inconsistency between me having a right to build a shrine to Shiva and your "right" to be offended by that shrine. Since one of those, if applied, actually infringes on everyone's rights but yours, and the only one who looses if you do not have a right to be offended is you, I vote for everyone having the right to a religion, and you not having a right to be free from it.

What you do have is a right to be free from the government trying to impose a religion on you. The fact that you do not understand this, and that you continually try to put words in my mouth, or the mouths of anyone who tries to point out how absurd any of your positions are, proves which one of us is actually right.

 

[Intense]

It's only "not here" because of vigilance. Like any other right it's not natural, but the result of people stepping forward and saying "you're going to far". I may be living in the past, but just look at the reaction whenever the religious right is told that. What would they do, if not challenged? Who's to say they wouldn't go as far as Iran? I don't want to find out.

The thing inside you, that screams against Injustice, does in fact suggest Natural Right exists.

That's a human desire, perhaps, but in a state of nature there's no such thing. The only right you have, if I'm stronger than you, is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, hoping I'll leave you some scraps. For any other rights to exist anywhere but in the mind, some form of civil authority is necessary to force the strong not to take advantage of the weak.

Wrong. Where there is intelligence, one creates opportunity. Be it through circumstance, timing, patience, whatever. What comes around goes around. If you haven't learned that by now, it's your problem. No matter how strong you think you are, you have to sleep sometime, we all have strengths, we all have weaknesses. It is part of the natural order.

Another perspective is represented in the game "Rock-Paper-Scissors".

 

[LOki]

Not in a nation where one religion (particularly if we're talking about an Abrahamic tradition) is law, and other religions are crimes.

Israel has public stoning and state sponsored suicide bombings? The Vatican? Turkey?



Talk about strawmen.

If these superstitious retards have enough rational morality to be so ashamed of the plain directives of their God that they don't practice them openly, it is no diminishment AT ALL of my point--and certainly doesn't make it a strawman.

A lie, and a violation of the 9th Commandment.

It is neither, unless you are going to assert that Marxism is a religion.

It's both if you're denying that Thomas Torquemada (for instance) was an extremist who neither killed or tortured thousands who failed to meet his notions of what a Christian is.

It would be totally awesome of you to claim his position is mainstream.

Only extremist nincompoops believe that religion has any valid role to play in the foundation or function of government.

Can you point out where I said anything like that?

Didn't think so.

Just pointing out to you where extremists and nincompoops actually reside.

Oh. I see what you're doing. You're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

No I am not, ...

Sure you are; just watch ...

I am pointing out the logical inconsistency between me having a right to build a shrine to Shiva and your "right" to be offended by that shrine.

There is no logical inconsistency between these two things. None. I agree that you certainly have a right to build your shrine, you simply cannot argue that I have no right to be offended by it. Only a bigot would demand otherwise.

Since one of those, if applied, actually infringes on everyone's rights but yours, and the only one who looses if you do not have a right to be offended is you, I vote for everyone having the right to a religion, and you not having a right to be free from it.

You have just claimed that the fundamental principle upon which being offended is based (the freedom to discern good from evil according to your own conscience) is not a right at all, but some kind of privilege that I (and presumably anyone else offended by your religious expression) am claiming.

This is where you're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

In fact, your claim that you have the right to deny me freedom from your religion, by the power of your political franchise, is repugnant to any rational notion of freedom of religion.

What you do have is a right to be free from the government trying to impose a religion on you.

I also have the right to be offended by your religion, and you have no right to infringe upon my right by "[voting] for everyone having the right to a religion, and [me] not having a right to be free from it." It is simply illegitimate for you to use the power of government to force your religion upon me or deny me my right to be offended by your religion.

The fact that you do not understand this,...

I understand the right to be free from the government trying to impose a religion on me perfectly.

... and that you continually try to put words in my mouth, ...

This never happened.

... or the mouths of anyone who tries to point out how absurd any of your positions are, ...

This never happened either.

... proves which one of us is actually right.

For those who demand the validity of faith as a measure of what constitutes "proof," your use of the term "prove" is meaningless. Your denials of reality cannot prove me wrong, and they certainly do not prove you right.

 

[Intense]

Allow me to ask one simple question to those who want religion to govern us.

Would you be willing to accept all religions equally?

That would be pretty mindless. Would you want Others to control you in such a way? Aren't you entitled to make up your own mind?