›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

"I don't recall freedom of religion meaning no religion."

SailSail
edited February 2007 in Everything Else
image
«1

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    Looks to me like religion is the one causing all the hate. See evidence above.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    What paper is that from?
  • PilitusPilitus
    The Redneck Jackass Daily?
  • DavidDavid
    Oh man, I wish this was just a single person who believed that.
  • JasonJason
    As someone in the newspaper industry, I can confidently say that it is almost exclusively the most ignorant readers who write letters to the editor. The squeaky wheel is almost always the one that can't stop whining long enough to reflect on events or policies and truly understand them; they also tend to be the people who can't shut the hell up long enough to take in new inputs and ideas (such as tolerance and different points of view).

    Bottom line: I think most Americans are complacent enough about the perpetuation and steady decline of established religious institutions to think this way. It is often touted that 80+ percent of America is "Christian," but I believe that statistic is basically wishy-washy crap. I think it means that 80+ percent of Americans have been raised in a moralistic home environment where the tradition of god -- but not necessarily an intellectual belief in god -- is the norm. I think America is far more atheist than most people would conceive.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    "I don't care if they have never committed a crime, atheists are the reason crime is rampant."

    How the hell do you even respond to something like that?
  • CremlianCremlian
    "I don't care if they have never committed a crime, atheists are the reason crime is rampant."

    That is probably the most awesome comment ever made by a Idiot.
  • MamathMamath
    I guess it means we're making all the religious people commit crimes. :|

    Sneaky.
  • SailSail
    Count the logical fallacies.
  • Hitman HartHitman Hart
    I've never understood why people who follow religions that emphasize peace so much(ie, just about every major one in the world) are so concerned with hating people who believe differently. Generally, it seems these are the types big into converting you to their faith. Would you convert because someone yelled at you that you caused all the crime in this country?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I always took the freedom of religion line to also mean freedom from religion.

    Why is it that whenever you have a "freedom of" statement the idea of abstaining from whatever that "freedom of" statement pertains to is somehow seen as bad by a vocal minority?
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Let's not forget that the wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" this indicates that Congress cannot stop someone from practicing a religion if they want to, but in no way obligates people to do so.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Let's not forget that the wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" this indicates that Congress cannot stop someone from practicing a religion if they want to, but in no way obligates people to do so.
    The way it has been handled by the Supreme Court in the past has been through the Lemon Test. It was established after the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1968. The three main tests from it are:
    • The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
    • The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing nor inhibiting religion;
    • The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.
    The problem is that it has always been used inconsistently.
  • phurballdjphurballdj
    In case anyone's interested, the only Soldotna that comes up in MapQuest is Soldotna, AK.

    The MapQuest link (TinyURL'ed).
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Leave it to the Supreme Court to interpret "shall make no law" as "shall make some laws."
  • Loganator456Loganator456
    Even though I'm a catholic, I don't really give a damn whether you're atheists or not. It's these over-religious reporters who cant get an article so they rant about atheists like that one that give some religious people like me and others a bad name.
  • JasonJason
    Even though I'm a catholic, I don't really give a damn whether you're atheists or not. It's these over-religious reporters who cant get an article so they rant about atheists like that one that give some religious people like me and others a bad name.
    I really hope you're trying to be funny. That was a letter to the editor, not an article by a reporter.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Even though I'm a catholic, I don't really give a damn whether you're atheists or not. It's these over-religious reporters who cant get an article so they rant about atheists like that one that give some religious people like me and others a bad name.
    I really hope you're trying to be funny. That was a letter to the editor, not an article by a reporter.
    I think he was reffering to you
  • CramitCramit
    The "In God We Trust" did not appear on US currency until the early 50's.
  • SparkybuzzedSparkybuzzed


    Dear Lord, please save us from your people.
  • KytriKytri
    Sadly people that think like that aren't uncommon where I live.
  • Hitman HartHitman Hart
    Communism really scared this country into losing its mind, didn't it? "Godless Communism" still has an effect because people then overcompensated
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited February 2007
    . . . this indicates that Congress cannot stop someone from practicing a religion if they want to, but in no way obligates people to do so.
    Can Congress stop a parent from forcing a child to handle snakes? Can Congress stop a parent from denyng medical care to a child? How about either of the last two cases with a spouse instead of a child? Can Congress stop a person from engaging in polygamy? Can Congress stop someone from taking peyote? Can Congress stop a person from offering a human sacrifice? How about an animal sacrifice? Would it matter where the animal sacrifice occurred?

    I think you'll find that Congress stops a lot of practice. What sort of test would you think the Court should apply to decide if the prohibition is constitutional? What sort of scrutiny should the Court use in analyzing the legislation? Should we use the Lemon test?

    WIP: Was Lemon an Establishment case or a Free Exercise case? Do we use Lemon to analyze whether a restriction on free exercise is valid or do we use it to analyze whether government involvement is proper, such as in the case of faith based initiatives?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AndrewAndrew

    WIP: WasLemonan Establishment case or a Free Exercise case?
    Establishment. Full Info.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited February 2007

    WIP: WasLemonan Establishment case or a Free Exercise case?
    Establishment.Full Info.
    Well then, is that the test for whether Congress can force a person to have a religion?

    I'll bet you'll find there's a different standard for Free Exercise cases.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Well then, is that the test for whether Congress can force a person to have a religion?
    No. Are you saying that I was implying that it was for both?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited February 2007
    The thread began with a letter suggesting that Congress has the power to force the practice of a religion. You posted in response to Whaleshark's proposal that Congress cannot stop a person from practicing a particular religion that, "[t]he way it has been handled by the Supreme Court in the past has been through the Lemon Test." To me it appears that you are suggesting that we should apply Lemon to analyze whether Congress has the power to force the practice of a religion.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited February 2007
    Let's not forget that the wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" this indicates that Congress cannot stop someone from practicing a religion if they want to, but in no way obligates people to do so.
    I was replying to his comment on the first amendment by giving the reference of how it has been enforced by the Court.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited February 2007
    Whaleshark quotes two clauses. Is Lemon the test used for both? Is this how the Court enforces the Amendment or how it scrutinizes legislation?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AndrewAndrew
    The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing nor inhibiting religion;
Sign In or Register to comment.