Freedom Of Religion In The Usa Should Not Involve Freedom To *fully* P

[dairygirl4u2c]

engaged in this debate elsewhere. what are your thoughts?

---------

 

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm

the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws.

examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist.
to name a few.

it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be fully practiced, says a lot about the religion.

[superblue]

 I think it is safe to say here in America, that " religious freedom " ends when it comes into direct and blatant conflict with common sense and our Constitution and Bill of Rights,  that being said I am not sure if you are asking why such religious laws are not being practiced or what ?  It is a slippery slope I do not want to see this country engaged in ever, because if such archaic and insane laws are practiced here in America, then we have to cave in to sharia law, and then after that we mine as well kiss everything we enjoy good bye.

But heck even Catholics are getting the stick in this regard too, when we have to go to court and file some kind of claim against our rights of freedom of religion to not be forced into paying in any way towards abortions or anything surrounding it.  An the conflict there is the law itself, we have a law that says we have to pay our taxes and have health care coverage, so goodbye to your freedom to choose and all hail progressivism but all of a sudden some people are going woa woa wait a minute we don't want to pay for abortions its against our religion...

 

* shrugs *

 

again with out further clarification on what your intent on this thread is, expect it to be derailed really really fast.

[CrossCuT]

Freedom of religion in the US is a funny topic.

[Credo in Deum]

engaged in this debate elsewhere. what are your thoughts?

---------

 

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm

the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws.

examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist.
to name a few.

it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be fully practiced, says a lot about the religion.

 

There isn't a point in arguing this since those who practice Judaism now are practicing Rabbinic Judaism. 

[CatherineM]

Got to argue this in court once. Right to religious thought or belief is absolute, but the practice of that belief is not. You can believe in the ancient Mayan religion, but you aren't allowed to rip out someone's still beating heart.

[Socrates]

Got to argue this in court once. Right to religious thought or belief is absolute, but the practice of that belief is not. You can believe in the ancient Mayan religion, but you aren't allowed to rip out someone's still beating heart.

 

While I agree that the first amendment right to free practice of religion should not extend to things such as ritual murder (I doubt the framers even really considered such things, as religion in the states at the time was basically confined to various Judeao-Christian sects), this brings up some interesting issues.

 

The religious liberty clause of the first amendment does guarantee free practice of religion, which goes beyond mere freedom of belief, or even freedom of worship, as many modern progressives contend.  (It's pretty hard to enforce private belief, anyway.)

 

I've seen some bleeding hearts try to use extreme cases like those you mention to essentially say that the government can make laws restricting the free practice of religion whenever they want (such as the contraception mandate of Obamacare), as long as people are allowed to privately believe and worship as they wish.

 

I say free practice of religion should be almost absolute - barring "extreme" cases where something clearly objectively evil and already unlawful is involved (murder, rape, etc.) - not simply whenever free practice of religion contradicts the latest utopian scheme of government.

But this all illustrates the ultimate absurdity of absolute pluralism in a society.

[NotreDame]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The first amendment is meant to prevent congress from restricting our free exercise of religion.  The first amendment does not give individuals the right to infringe on others' civil liberties while exercising that religion.

[superblue]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The first amendment is meant to prevent congress from restricting our free exercise of religion.  The first amendment does not give individuals the right to infringe on others' civil liberties while exercising that religion.

 

 

 Make sure to remember that when Islamists want Sharia Law enforced.

[NotreDame]

 Make sure to remember that when Islamists want Sharia Law enforced.

 

I don't follow. 
 

[PhuturePriest]

Freedom of religion in the US is a funny topic.

 

Who have you been debating? I'd rather like to discuss it with them than the wackos I've been encountering.

[CatherineM]

While I agree that the first amendment right to free practice of religion should not extend to things such as ritual murder (I doubt the framers even really considered such things, as religion in the states at the time was basically confined to various Judeao-Christian sects), this brings up some interesting issues.

The religious liberty clause of the first amendment does guarantee free practice of religion, which goes beyond mere freedom of belief, or even freedom of worship, as many modern progressives contend. (It's pretty hard to enforce private belief, anyway.)

I've seen some bleeding hearts try to use extreme cases like those you mention to essentially say that the government can make laws restricting the free practice of religion whenever they want (such as the contraception mandate of Obamacare), as long as people are allowed to privately believe and worship as they wish.

I say free practice of religion should be almost absolute - barring "extreme" cases where something clearly objectively evil and already unlawful is involved (murder, rape, etc.) - not simply whenever free practice of religion contradicts the latest utopian scheme of government.
But this all illustrates the ultimate absurdity of absolute pluralism in a society.

I was representing a teenager who needed heart surgery and her parents were JW's. I argued that their right to practice their faith ends where their child's right to life begins.

[CrossCuT]

Who have you been debating? I'd rather like to discuss it with them than the wackos I've been encountering.

 

:evil:

[KnightofChrist]

Why shouldn't there be a freedom to fully P? IDEK! Are we just suppose to hold half of it in? 

[Socrates]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The first amendment is meant to prevent congress from restricting our free exercise of religion.  The first amendment does not give individuals the right to infringe on others' civil liberties while exercising that religion.

 

The trouble is, now things like free contraceptives and abortifacients are being declared civil liberties and rights which people must be forced to provide against their religion.

 

Who's to say what morally objectionable thing will next be declared a civil liberty or right that people will be forced to support against their religious conscience?

 

We're witnessing the wreckage left by the combination of an all-powerful leviathon state and moral nihilism.

[NotreDame]

The trouble is, now things like free contraceptives and abortifacients are being declared civil liberties and rights which people must be forced to provide against their religion.

 

Who's to say what morally objectionable thing will next be declared a civil liberty or right that people will be forced to support against their religious conscience?

 

We're witnessing the wreckage left by the combination of an all-powerful leviathon state and moral nihilism.

 

I think the difficulty is that liberty is the right to do something (and/or freedom from coercion to do something.)  It never meant the right to something, though that is how it is now being interpreted by some elements.  Ironically, this progressive understanding of a "right" actually undermines liberties since it requires the coercion of others, in violation of their rights.