Does freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion?

Similar to free speech. Which means that at certain times and places other people can exercise their free speech even though I may personally wish they would shut up.

I am free to listen, disagree or just walk away.

Freedom does not include the right to make other people disappear.

 

Freedom of religion or freedom from religion is not stated specifically in the American Constitution in the first amendment in "Religion Clauses." The 'establishment' clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Which law has the congress passed that established a State church?

 

Horrible analogy. Councilmen choosing to pray before a meeting is not a public disturbance nor is that the government sanctioning any religion.

Again, there is not sanctioning, promoting, or encouraging going on in this scenario.

I'm not a conservative...but I don't want government involved in my religious matters, which includes them not telling people that they can't pray just as much as it includes them not telling people that they have to pray.

So you're trying to base your argument on legal rights. Unfortunately for you that falls flat since the law does not support you in this.

I haven't once proposed mixing government and religion so why would I need to give you a reason, good or otherwise, to do so? My position all along has been to keep government from dictating religion in any fashion. That means if a duly elected Muslim councilman wants to recite a prayer to Allah then he is well within his rights to do so as long as he isn't forcing anyone else to participate.

Newsflash: Barney Fife reciting a prayer is not anywhere close to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

I will start believing in God when someone can explain this to me. He is all powerful, he created man, he is our savoir, yet he is always broke and has his followers asking for money. He does not seem all that powerful.

 

I think you're in the wrong thread. This one has nothing to do with whether or not God exists and I doubt anyone here really cares about your personal religious beliefs or lack thereof. They certainly do not pertain to this thread which is about political beliefs and preferences.

 

No it is quite fitting, you cannot walk into a courtroom and start praying or speaking freely can you.

It is if they are doing so in their official capacity in an offical manner, it becomes and endorsement and sanctioning.

Again tell me what is the official purpose of having the prayer?

It MOST CERTAINLY IS. The councilperson can pray at home before they come to city hall, they can pray in their car outside city hall, they can even pray in their office or the bathroom. But once in the council room in their official capacity engaging in religious ceremony is an endorsement and sanctioning and use of government resources to engage in that religious ceremony.

Again, why is it necessary?

Well that is exactly what you are advocating by approving of government sanctioned religious ceremony during government proceedings in government buildings by government officials.

And you've given no reason why it is necessary.

They are free to pray on their own time and their own dime, not during government activity and as government officials.

The law and the Constitution.

It is exactly what you are doing.

False, you are advocating the dictate having religious ceremony during government activity by government officials.

Not just recite but call for the proceedings to halt and call everyone to prayer and them make people sit in silence while he carries out his religious ceremony noting who does not participate and then having those who refuse to come before him to make their request of government. I don't believe for a second you would stand back and have such religious activity be engaged in at your city council meetings.

If he is acting in his offical capacity at a government proceeding it is giving respect to religious establishment and has not business there.

AGAIN, what is the purpose of having such a religious ceremony at government proceedings?

 

I totally agree. But that isnt what we are talking about here. I even support the Westburo Baptist church to say the horrible things they do. Free speech includes hate speech. I acknowledge that.


BUT, they play no part in government. Im talking about things like teaching creationism in schools in place of evolution. Im talking about the little town hall meetings that always open with only a christian prayer, but allow no other religions to have equal ground. Things like that.

 

There are cases of children being stopped from voluntary prayers during break times, or from reading the Bible during free reading time.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014...told-its-not-good-to-pray-by-school-employee/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/05/teacher-tells-student-cant-read-bible-in-my-classroom/

I would have no problem with the city council being started (on different days) by all different religions represented in the community. If there are Muslims in the community, on their week, the above would be acceptable.

 

You also can't go into a courtroom and hold a city council meeting...like I said, horrible analogy.

Nope, nobody is being forced to do anything. It would be like a city councilman standing up and saying, "I like turtles." That wouldn't mean that government is endorsing or sanctioning turtles.

There isn't one, which is why claiming that it is an endorsement or sanctioning is silly.

They can also pray at the meeting if they so choose. That's the beauty of free speech.

When did I ever say that it was necessary?

Nope. Again, I'm not advocating for anything other than free speech.

See above.

They're also free to pray at council meetings. Welcome to America.

Negative, both disagree with you.

Nope.

I am advocating for not telling representatives of the people what they can and cannot say at their own damn meeting.

I couldn't care less if a city councilman chooses to pray. That's his business. If his constituents don't like it then they can vote him out of office. Simple.

Show me the "law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Otherwise you're just throwing words around.

Again, it serves no purpose as far as I'm concerned but allowing a duly elected representative free speech certainly DOES serve a purpose.

 

And that is wrong.

And the action was not supported by the school, it was a lunchroom supervisor, and the school denied it even happened.

Can't find a final resolution.

Why? Why is it necessary to involve government in religion at all, it only allows one religious view to insult another as when Christians state in their prayer that only through THEIR religious faith can one enter heaven and seek salvation, why should one religion be allowed to use a government sponsored meeting to advance that belief? What purpose does it serve?

Again why? What does it have to do with the business of the government and ALL the people it serves including those of no religious faith?

 

This is about holding a religious ceremony in a government sanctioned activity not hold a government activity in a government acitivity. Once again not being able to opening pray and call the courtroom to prayer does not violate anyone's right anymore than it does to not being able to do so in a city council meeting.

If he started praying to them and making everyone else sit there while he does so it does and he would probably be asked to leave the chamber.

No it is quite the point and still waiting for you to tell me why it is necessary.

It's not a free speech issue, religion and free speech are handled separately in the Constituion and you do NOT have a right to either in a city council meeting. I challenge go to your next one and in the middle stand up and just start speaking and see what happens. Yes you can siliently pray to yourself, but to call for an organized prayer ceremony especially if one of the officials is calling for it and the body is sanctioning it is against the Constitution.

You're the one insisting it be done, why? Why is it necessary? And if it's not then it is also a waste of time.

This is about separation of church and state but again you have not right to stand up and start just speaking at a city council meeting or as I noted go try to do so in a government courtroom and see what happens.

See above and yep.

You are advocating they engage in their religious ceremony during a public meeting.

I couldn't either as long as he doesn't do it in a official government sanctioned event. Simple.

Not quite, one of the purposes of separation of church and state is to not allow the majority religion dominate and control the government of all the people which would likely lead to religious oppression as it has throughout history.

It is embodied into our Constitution which is the mother of our laws.

You really need to learn the difference between free speech and separation of church and state. Even members of city councils can be ruled out of order in their speech you know, they have no absolute free speech in an official meeting.

 

I don't see how it can be any other way than including Freedom From. If you are going to Enforce something religious on people then it has to be some specific religion they are enforcing, and that is establishing a State Church.

 

Or giving respect to any religious faith.

 

You're not getting it. I asked you to show me the law that you were objecting to that supposedly is respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You claimed that the law was found in the Constitution. That is just silly unless you're trying to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that a prayer at a council meeting is not a "law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is free speech. That is not only common sense but it is the current state of the law as upheld by the Supreme Court.

You can repeat yourself all you want. You can put words into my mouth all you want, like claiming that I am "advocating" that people hold religious ceremonies or that they are necessary but that isn't going to magically change the reality. Unfortunately for you, you are relying solely on the law to form your argument and the reality is that what you are saying is NOT backed up by law but is actually directly contradicted by it. You've run out of gas.

 

I don’t see it as winning or losing. I am a progressive creationist which means I do not necessarily believe in the seven day creation, and do accept some science. For example I accept as true evolution is true in many of its ever changing claims. Nevertheless don’t believe life began to exist due to evolutionary processes. The reason for not accepting evolutionary theory in its entirety? The time factor. Its impossible not to notice that evolutionists began backing away from the little warm pond idea and switched to an ‘asteroid did it’ when the time issue became evident. So they have admitted what I have been saying since my college days. There seems not to be enough time to evolve all we see today, but that’s another thread. So we could say there may be other explanations other than evolution for the life process to emerge (while leaving evolutionary theory as it is which doesn’t mention the emergence of life anyway).

reva

 

Your reply is spot on. I too want the children to know that there is another CHOICE to explain how our universe, (i.e. earth and life on earth) became what it is other than the state mandated evolutionary theory. Or for now I would accept a some flexibility when teaching a subject that many in the field of education and the science of evolutionary theory just hint of. And that hint is; That evolution may explain how life originated. If the teacher could give the students a choice between evolution and ID or even creation (yes they are different) as to how and why life began, that would be a start.

reva

 

You make it very clear that the education on this issue is inadequate by pointing out you do not understand it. Evolution in no way deals with how life came about, it tackles the ways in which Humans came about (as well as all current life). If public education included Abiogenesis in its curriculum you would have a point, but as this is but a theory it cannot be included as fact in science class.
Abiogenesis can be discussed and the data examined...but it is impossible to "Teach" something that is not verified as fact in a science class, thus creation and ID cannot be taught either. There is however the opportunity to examine the possibility of Abiogenesis and the possibilities of it being accurate...discussing creation or ID would take up ten minutes of a class, with 8 minutes of it being Q&A.

Teacher~ Today we will examine Intelligent design as an hypothesis for the creation on life on Earth.
"Something somehow poofed life into existence at some time for some reason."

Questions?