Does freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion?

Why do the have to pray there? What official purpose does it serve? Is the time and space of others there to conduct government business infringed upon by their engaging in a religious ceremony?

It's not a matter of "compulsion" it is a matter of giving respect to a religious ceremony during government business and within government facilities.

Do it on your own dime and your own time, your religious ceremony has nothing to do with our government and the conducting of our government business.

Specious. It's not a matter of you do yours and we do ours.

 

Freedom of religion does not translate into you not being exposed to any religious expression.

It means that are free to accept, reject or ignore those expressions. It does not mean that you can demand no religious expression which can be observed by those who don't accept religious ideas, Christian or otherwise.

 

I suppose that depends on your tolerance level as to what it means to enforce.If a football team wants to pray before a game, the coaches want to join in, but Ahmed the kicker feels pressured to join in because the coaches join in, then it becomes very blurry. Likewise, spring break and winter break in public schools are clearly religiously motivated to correspond with Easter and Christmas, but does calling them something else really make a difference?

Personally I don't care if religion intersects the public sphere and I don't particularly care which religion that is. If it means I might have to move, then so be it. My preference should not dictate what complete strangers do or do not do generally except mostly on the issue of abortion because if there truly is any right, it is the right to have a fighting chance at living.

 

Freedom of speech. The government isn't allowed to tell them that they can't pray so... Whether it is a waste of time or not is a separate matter.

How do you stop someone from praying? Would it be legal to stop them? No, it wouldn't.

My religious ceremony? No, I've already voiced my opinion about the worth of the prayer. It has nothing to do with me. It also doesn't hinder government function in any way so...

That is EXACTLY what rights are about. You do your thing and I'll do mine.

Sorry, but in the adult world, sometimes you have to tolerate people who are different than you.

 

When they are acting in their official capacity in a government proceeding it most certainly is allowed to do so.

If I stood up in a courtroom and started praying out loud what would happen?

The "your" was generic.
Do it on your own dime and your own time, your religious ceremony has nothing to do with our government and the conducting of our government business.

Yes you have a right to practice your religion on your own dime on your time with interference from government and not on government property. Go set up a church service in the local park and see what happens. You have to apply for a permit don't you and you cannot do so on a regular basis can you.

Not in a government setting when it comes to religious ceremony. It has no business there.

But I still wait an answer to why it is necessary to have a religious ceremony, no matter how short, in government.

 

It's not a "religious ceremony". It is some individuals on the council deciding to pray. They aren't forcing other people to pray. They aren't infringing on anyone's rights.

 

When my daughter was in high school ROTC we went to an awards and promotion banquet at the school. We were sitting with some good friends who also had a son and some younger kids with them. They are Jewish. As the banquet began a local minister was brought up and it was announced there would be a prayer. Well they looked at each other and the father motioned for them to bow their heads which they did. The minister began and got into the "and only through Jesus do we seek salvation and only through him can we seek the father blah blah blah", the kids looked at their father and he gave them a sighing kind of look like I'll explain later.

THAT is why government should not sanction religious faith or give respect to a religious establishment. It has no business engaging in the religious ceremony of one religion over another or any religion for that matter. To many religious people would be more than will to use the power of government to advance an promote their own religious view whether they be Christian or Jewish or yes even Muslim.

 

NO, an organized prayer in a government proceeding IS a religious ceremony and has no business in an official government proceeding. No one has a right to inject one into it. I will protect your right to have your church and engage in your religious faith on your own dime and your on time to entirety, but it has no place in government. Government is to respect all people regardless of religious faith and give no respect to that religious faith.

 

What are you basing your position on? It isn't natural rights theory as there is no victim. It isn't legal rights theory since prayers conducted by individuals at government meetings have been deemed Constitutional. Are you basing it on anything other than you personally not liking it?

 

Also, what type of government are you advocating that tells the people's representatives that there are certain things that they can't say?

 

That is seriously, well, the silliest basis for an argument I have heard in some time. Should Jews not be allowed to attend Christian weddings or funerals because their child might be exposed to the reality that people believe different that they do? Is your multi-cultural world vision one in which everyone only lives their culture behind closed doors and in public be superficial generic autotrons?

 

this is a refreshing poll result, so only about a 4th of the people feel forcing their religious beliefs on others is ok, glad to see it

 

The no side doesn't imply that it should be that way

 

at least 3\4 of the people believe the law protects other people from the gov forcing religion on their children

 

Of course. I was referring to the fact that the government can install religious laws, as long as they don't attribute to the composition of the government.

 

We already allow Muslim students to pray towards Mecca during class times--as long ago as the early 1990s. We also allow the Quran as a substitute for the Bible in swearing in, in courtrooms.

 

There is a huge difference between allowing and requiring.

 

It can do, if people aren't keeping things clear in their mind (and therefore if clear guidance for such situations don't exist).

In that instance, there should obviously be no compulsion on anyone to pray - it shouldn't be a fixed, compulsory element to the pre-game preparation. It shouldn't be something dictated, but even if it happens at every game habitually or traditionally it should be absolutely clear to everyone that it is a matter of choice for those who wish to pray. It must be clearly stated and understood that nobody is being told to pray, or expected to pray, or considered lesser if they choose not to pray. Those who wish not to pray for any reason should have the clear choice to either stand out altogether in another area, or to simply stand in respectful silence while the prayer takes place (as a non-Christian myself, the latter would normally be my own choice in such circumstances - it happens quite a lot in life, and I've never found that a problem). The prayer, and their belief, should be something that Ahmed respects about his fellow players, and likewise his religion (or lack thereof - let's not make too many assumptions on the basis of a name alone!) should be something that they respect about him. It shouldn't be an issue for anyone, and nobody should be under any pressure to conform.

There is another element of respect, though - Ahmed has stood out or stood in respect at their prayer, but perhaps he wants to say a prayer of his own, in line with his own beliefs, before the game, too. Certainly nothing wrong with that, or with him doing so within the same 'group' context of the Christian prayer. The coaches and other players should respect that, and stand with him in respectful silence as he does so (or be in a different place from him, of course, whichever anyone prefers). They have had their small pre-game 'religious ceremony', and he should have the same if he wants, and that should be something that everyone understands and respects about each other. There could be three of four different prayers said within the group before a game - nothing wrong with that.

The fact that other people have different beliefs should not be a matter for argument, or for ill-feeling of any kind. There is no need for that, and it does nobody any good. As players in a team, it doesn't matter that the team members are different people with different personal opinions and beliefs - it's what they do together that is important to the team itself and what they achieve, and in order to do that they need to respect each other and who each other are. Nobody should be trying to offend others, or be trying to be offended by them - if everyone simply respects each other (and everyone's right to choose their own beliefs for themselves), then there just isn't a problem.

Not really. People who live in predominantly Christian countries do have to accept that, by tradition, vacations will tend to be based around the Christian calender, just as someone who is a Christian in another country might have to accept that their vacations are not. Again, that shouldn't be a problem - just because a holiday period is referred to as 'Easter' doesn't mean that there is a compulsion to celebrate the Christian festival, nor that there is anything preventing a person celebrating something else at the same or at a different time.

There may be some issues around things like legally permitted opening hours in some countries that could do with being addressed, of course. In the UK there are such issues at Easter, for example - there is really no reason why a non-Christian shouldn't be allowed to open their business as normal on a Christian holiday. That's a relatively minor thing, though - most will either take the day off, or simply ignore that law on the basis that it's pretty unlikely to be heavily enforced on someone of a different religion anyway.

To go back to my primary school days (a long time ago!), I was in a majority Christian school with many atheists and some Jewish children. We had a daily prayer in a school assembly, and celebrated Christian festivals. Non-Christians were allowed (through parental letters) to not take part, and it wasn't a problem - most actually attended the assembly but just sat in silence at prayer time (because it didn't apply to them). At Christian festival time a similar kind of thing happened, but we also always celebrated Jewish festivals, with the Jewish kids taking the lead in those assemblies, and regularly sang Jewish songs. Nobody saw it as a big issue - we all celebrated with each other, in support of each other, whether we actually believed in the same things or not.

There is an argument that singling out the Jewish kids for 'special treatment' during their own festivals could lead to them being marked as 'different' or 'weird', but in reality that didn't really happen. There were a few bigoted morons, of course, as there always are, but the overwhelming majority of kids understood that it just wasn't an issue that different kids had different religions. What it did was create a level of understanding about other religions (theirs in particular, of course), and a realisation that we could all celebrate with each other.

You don't need to be of a religion to understand and celebrate a religions festival with those who are. It's quite simple. I don't need to believe in the baby Jesus to celebrate Christmas as a time of peace, love and understanding. I don't need to be offended by the religions background, and I don't need to feel that it is something 'against me'. I shouldn't be compelled to enter into the actual direct worship elements, but I do need to understand and respect them and the part that they play for those believers.

The same goes for any religious festival from any religion and, indeed, for any cultural festival that isn't from my own culture. Such things should be a matter for celebration, or at the very least for respect and understanding. Nobody should feel threatened by someone else's religious or cultural beliefs or festivals.

Nothing should be imposed on anyone who isn't a part of a particular religion, but likewise nothing should be forbidden for those who are either, including in public and at public events. To return once more to the original question, we should all be free to choose our own beliefs, and free from the compulsion to partake in other people's beliefs, but we should never be free from seeing other people freely worshipping in the way that they choose. That wouldn't be us all living together in a free society at all.

 

If that ever occurred, it would be because real evidence could be presented to make a valid scientific case for creationism/intelligent design. If that could be done today, there wouldn't be an issue about teaching it in schools. The issue arises because the basis for those theories is not scientific, not based on evidence, and not even in line with common sense.

If it got to the point where they were actual valid theories with evidence to support them, you would not find the opposition to those things being taught in schools. They are not opposed strictly because they are religious, but because they have no basis and only exist because religious texts which have no basis in science say that's how it happened. With no standards to be held to, I could put forth a theory where I farted and that was the big bang and it would be no less valid than creationism/ID.

 

Rights don't hinge on victims. BUT that being said when religion and government intertwine it certainly seems to produce lots of victims. The fact remains organized prayer is a religious ceremony and government has no business supporting or sanctioning religious ceremony.

- - - Updated - - -

When you can make the intellectual distinction between private and government get back to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you give me some examples of these religious laws we have in our government? Where is the religious part in our Constitution?

 

Can you show me a school which stops all proceedings and then calls upon all to face Mecca and pray together? Christian students and other religious students can pray as long as they do it on their own during their break times and not in an organized classroom setting. They are free to gather around the flag pole in the morning for instance as long as they do not interfere with other students. Such acts are not sanctioned by the school thus no government involvement.

But to put into prospective here, if the local city council announced that every meeting would be proceeded by the laying down of prayer rugs and calling for everyone to bow down and pray to Mecca for the next 5 minutes I can imagine the outrage.

 

Yeah, I call it abortion limitations and specific church building laws.

 

Government has no right to limit free speech which is what a voluntary prayer that doesn't compel a single individual to join is. You still haven't laid out what you're basing your position on. So far, it seems that it relies simply on the fact that you don't like it and nothing more.

 

So your right to life is based on religion? Nope, I'm an atheist and am pro-life. It is a natural right.

What church building laws, building laws are local building ordinances.

 

Depends, if it creates a public disturbance they can, and I would challenge you to go down to the courthouse tomorrow and stand up when the judge comes in and start praying out loud and see what happens. You are certainly free to engage in your PRIVATE religious ceremony but not to use government to sanction and support it especially in a government setting.

Doesn't hinge on compelling. It hinges on sanctioning and promoting and even encouraging. As a conservative why on earth would you even want government involved in your religious matters? What purpose does it serve?

The Constitution and the simple principle that intertwing the power of government with the power of religious faiths is quite dangerous which is why we have the 1st amendment in the first place.

You still haven't given me a good reason to mix government and religion and why the majority religion should be given respect by government when the Constitution says forbidden.