Religious Freedom

[add]

The right to religious freedom can only mean its exercise-- not the freedom from confrontation. The meaning of 'freedom of religion' hasnothing to do with creating a society that is 'free from religion.'



Of course, the atheist parent might feel his orher child being molested by the cross in the classroom. But this is inevitable.I may also feel annoyed when upon entering a post office I catch sight of a photograph of a president whom I have not voted for. Influence, ideological signals, visual presences -- also sexist -- will always exist everywhere.

Merry Christmas and to all a good night

Edited November 15, 2009 by apparently

[Era Might]

[quote name='apparently' date='14 November 2009 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1258257674' post='2003053']Merry Christmas and to all a good night
[/quote]
Dude, it's not even Thanksgiving yet.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sometimes you've got a rant brewing inside and just need to yell at someone.

[add]

[quote name='Era Might' date='15 November 2009 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1258258290' post='2003066']
Dude, it's not even Thanksgiving yet.
[/quote]

happy thanksgiving

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Era Might' date='14 November 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1258258290' post='2003066']
Dude, it's not even Thanksgiving yet.
[/quote]

silly americans

[add]

thank god this thanksgiving

God is great.

God is good.

Let us thank him for our food.



Amen.

[cmotherofpirl]

Since this is the debate board, what is the debate - your definition?

[add]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 November 2009 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1258296650' post='2003200']
Since this is the debate board, what is the debate - your definition?
[/quote]
Question?:
Does religious freedom mean a society that is free from religion? for instance it is politically correct to remove any and all christian references from all public holidays, school books, merchandising (you can not say Merry Christmas out loud, you can say happy holidays) and stuff like that?

[cmotherofpirl]

Religious Freedom means religions are free to be practiced by the populace at large.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 November 2009 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1258305059' post='2003250']
Religious Freedom means religions are free to be practiced by the populace at large.
[/quote]
Or to not practice at all.

[Mr.Cat]

Freedom of religion does mean freedom to believe and practice one’s religion, in as much it does not violate a valid law. [i]Also, freedom to neither believe a religion or practice one[/i]. Freedom of religious practice does have legal limitations that are upheld by law. For example, someone who decided to enforce levitical or sharia laws would not be protected by freedom of religion. While in theory the freedom of belief is the only unrestricted freedom, even in practical application of law, this might not always be true either. For example, someone would not be protected by freedom of religion if their religious beliefs can be found to make them seriously incompetent.

Freedom of religion ultimately must mean freedom from religion, in as much as this means that religious communities, institutions, or individuals do not infringe or impose on the freedom of society and the liberty of individuals. Freedom of religion must mean that you will be protected from other people’s religious practices/beliefs. For example this means in a publically funded education system, there will be no public display or endorsement of religious practices/beliefs.

While some fundamentalists in the United States want to imagine our nation being Christian, or at the least founded with Christian ideals, this is chiefly untrue. While culturally the United States has remained predominately "[i]Christian[/i]", our government was and is a secular government, based more on Masonic thinking and ideology. The thought of our government becoming religious should be at least disturbing to some Catholics, since for most Americans this would mean a fundamentalist government with strong Anti-Catholic tendencies. We want and we need freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion, we don’t need or want fundamentalists writing our laws or governing our society. There is an entire document in the Second Vatican Council concerning religious liberty.



Technically, the United States does not vote directly for the President of the United States, the President is elected indirectly by the Electoral College. How the Electoral College functions locally varies state to state. This can sometimes and periodically mean that a President can loose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. While someday the United States might directly elect their President, this has yet to happen. In a democratic system, in referendums and elections, it does not mean that “[i]your[/i]” vote will be enacted, it means in theory that the majority vote will be enacted. Which means that eventually some of us will vote for a loosing candidate and a loosing proposition. This loss is more dramatic in the United States federal government because of the chiefly predominate two political party system, with a strong and centralized Executive branch.

[add]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='15 November 2009 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1258311707' post='2003268']
Freedom of religion does mean freedom to believe and practice one's religion, in as much it does not violate a valid law. [i]Also, freedom to neither believe a religion or practice one[/i]. Freedom of religious practice does have legal limitations that are upheld by law. For example, someone who decided to enforce levitical or sharia laws would not be protected by freedom of religion. While in theory the freedom of belief is the only unrestricted freedom, even in practical application of law, this might not always be true either. For example, someone would not be protected by freedom of religion if their religious beliefs can be found to make them seriously incompetent.

Freedom of religion ultimately must mean freedom from religion, in as much as this means that religious communities, institutions, or individuals do not infringe or impose on the freedom of society and the liberty of individuals. Freedom of religion must mean that you will be protected from other people's religious practices/beliefs. For example this means in a publically funded education system, there will be no public display or endorsement of religious practices/beliefs.

[font="Impact"][size="5"][b][color="#ff0000"]balderdash, utter balderdash. [font="Garamond"][size="2"]i [/size][/font][/color][/b][/size][/font][color="#ff0000"]think you have Communist mixed up with America. [/color]

While some fundamentalists in the United States want to imagine our nation being Christian, or at the least founded with Christian ideals, this is chiefly untrue. While culturally the United States has remained predominately "[i]Christian[/i]", our government was and is a secular government, based more on Masonic thinking and ideology. The thought of our government becoming religious should be at least disturbing to some Catholics, since for most Americans this would mean a fundamentalist government with strong Anti-Catholic tendencies. We want and we need freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion, we don't need or want fundamentalists writing our laws or governing our society. There is an entire document in the Second Vatican Council concerning religious liberty.



Technically, the United States does not vote directly for the President of the United States, the President is elected indirectly by the Electoral College. How the Electoral College functions locally varies state to state. This can sometimes and periodically mean that a President can loose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. While someday the United States might directly elect their President, this has yet to happen. In a democratic system, in referendums and elections, it does not mean that "[i]your[/i]" vote will be enacted, it means in theory that the majority vote will be enacted. Which means that eventually some of us will vote for a loosing candidate and a loosing proposition. This loss is more dramatic in the United States federal government because of the chiefly predominate two political party system, with a strong and centralized Executive branch.
[/quote]

[Mr.Cat]

"Apparently", No. Welcome to the United States.

[little_miss_late]

Apparently, could you define "religious confrontation" as you use it in your original post? I think I have the right not to be intimidated into covering my hair whenever I go out in public, and the right to keep my business open during someone else's holiday. These are two examples where my rights require that I be kept free from someone else's religion.

Do I think that this should extend to removing all of the Christian references from school books? Of course not. How could you possibly teach, for example, Western music or art history, without any Christian references? But I think there is a lot of gray in between. For example, there is a way to teach a class on religious images in art without making positive or negative statements about the religion itself.

[add]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='15 November 2009 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1258337642' post='2003460']
"Apparently", No. Welcome to the United States.
[/quote]

United States
"one nation under God"

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='apparently' date='15 November 2009 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1258339956' post='2003482']
United States
"one nation under God"
[/quote]
Wow. That's your argument? Mr.CatholicCat was quite correct in his summary of religious freedom in the U.S.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='apparently' date='15 November 2009 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1258339956' post='2003482']
United States
"one nation under God"
[/quote]

you do realize that was only added in 1954, and was NOT in the original constitution?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='apparently' date='15 November 2009 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1258339956' post='2003482']United States
"one nation under God"[/quote]Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance in 1892: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” While efforts to amend and change this pledge have existed almost from 1892, the United States Congress adopted in 1954 a modified version which included the phrase “under God”.

The United States Supreme Court ruling in "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette" (1943) found that compulsory use of the pledge violated the First Amendment, that it violated an individual’s freedom of opinion, even before the version with the phrase “under God” was added. In 2002 and 2005 Federal courts ruled "one Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism in public schools when compulsory. In 2006 the Federal courts ruled against compulsory standing for the Pledge in public schools, overturning a Florida law citing it violated the first and fourteenth amendments.

So while the Pledge of Allegiance was found unconstitutional, then found unconstitutional, and then found unconstitutional again... No. It is resonable to suggest the United States goverment is a secular one, it is [b][u]NOT[/u][/b] a religious government. Regardless if the Pledge of Allegiance is used or not; constitutional or unconstitutional.


[quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy"]Francis Bellamy[/url] (1855-1931)
"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people... Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."[/quote]

Edited November 16, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[add]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='15 November 2009 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1258342271' post='2003515']
you do realize that was only added in 1954, and was NOT in the original constitution?
[/quote]

does this fact invalidate anything?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='apparently' date='16 November 2009 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1258384240' post='2003642']
does this fact invalidate anything?
[/quote]
It invalidates it as an argument against religious freedom for those who are of a different belief system or no religious belief system at all.