The government’s got it wrong.
For a while now, there has been a push to redefine what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion comes from the following:
"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."
Here’s what people seem to think it says:
Congress shall not let anybody holding public office exercise their religion. Anybody who works for the government cannot exercise their religion during work hours. All exercise of religion outside of strictly religious organizations is prohibited. Government money cannot go to any religious organization, even if it provides a service better or cheaper than the government could provide.
What I’m saying is that the violation of the Constitution wasn’t when we had the Ten Commandments at the court house. It was when we removed them.
Now we have the issue of the prayer before starting a public meeting. Everybody on the committee agrees with it, but people who aren’t involved are up in arms about it because it brings religion into government. You know what? Those are people in the government. And the law doesn’t say they need to stop praying. The law says that you, concerned citizen, cannot stop them from praying. That’s unconstitutional for you to do.
There’s a bunch of backwards rules that are coming out of the justice system because they can’t even read a document that spells it out clearly. The very law of our nation that is supposed to keep the government from being able to stop us from praying, celebrating, and exercising our religion has been misinterpreted to mean that they MUST stop us.
I would urge any Christian specifically, because most of this seems to apply only to us, to fight back in two ways. One, don’t let them trample on your rights. Two, don’t trample on the rights of other religious groups. If a Muslim wants to pray, too, that’s HIS right and you shouldn’t stop him, either. Show the world that it is religious persecution against the Christians instead of just a societal struggle to eliminate all religion from public life. If it’s not, we’re going to end up in the same place as the other religions. But what it feels like, is that we’re going to end up with a country that doesn’t allow Christianity, but allows every other religion. I hope I’m wrong.
Prayer is being stamped out of public by non-Christians - any public arena where the government has any sway.
If I was a Muslim, I would have a Muslim background, but I don't know how I would look at the writings of Mohammed and say they are consistent with each other. I would wonder why we even have the Old Testament books in our religion if we were saying that parts are true, parts are 'corrupted'.
So hopefully, I would eventually be witnessed to by a believer who could answer those questions and would allow me to be saved!
Why is it absurd?
You're redirecting my point. The prayer in question was a standard part of the public meeting, but was removed due to outside influences. Banned. Corporate prayer, we're talking about - there's also solo prayer which you can do yourself any time.
Slavery was an accepted form of torture with the Christian ‘Churches’ in the thick of it. It is no longer acceptable because of secularism, not religion. Should we bring it back because it used to be an accepted practice? Even in the short lifespan of humans, most grow to some extent beyond their young and often foolishly immature understanding of things. But it seems that for many, some things never change even after thousands of years. But reality just keeps marching on and everything changes because of that, with a few notable exceptions.
So you are talking about ‘corporate prayer’ huh, thought you made that up but Google says otherwise, hum again. Well, after researching this some I see no reason to rethink my stance. The bible offers no more ‘support’ for group prayer than it does individual prayer. The actual real corporate laws (of real corporations) don’t support this religious ploy either nor does the Constitution. Where does this authority come from such that it guaranties you the right to interrupt business meetings or whatnot? To save you some time (as if you would actually look it up), I have posted a couple of web pages you could quickly review first:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/corporate_prayer
http://www.gotquestions.org/corporate-prayer.html
PS - The post reads 'Freedom of religion' and Christianity just isn't the only religion to consider by the secular state. Even if you consider them all nonsensical as I do, they have just as much right as you by any standard ... not to be bothered by Christianity at work.
I have read this thread with interest, being one of those militant unbelievers who believe as Christopher Hitchens wrote in 'God is Not Great' that religion poisons everything. I was particularly interested in the postings around the idea that the US constitution guarantees the freedom to follow a 'zany' religion. As an outsider, being British I can't say that is the impression I get either in the States or in the UK. Let me give an example: you have a US based religion called the Scientologists and as you know Tom Cruise is a famous member of this 'church'. In the UK whenever Tom Cruise is mentioned (been in the papers a lot recently because of the split from Katie Holmes) Scientology is trashed, ridiculed, accused of being a false religion, of being 'loony' because of the belief in aliens or Thetans or whatever the hell they are.
Now, I do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, whether they are Catholic fairies, Hindu fairies or Jewish fairies etc. I cannot see why Scientology is any more crazy than any other religion based on nothing more than faith and words written thousands of years ago by more primitive people who still thought the sun was the centre of the universe and had no idea that dinosaurs once walked the earth.
In respect of the argument about guaranteeing the freedom to practise a faith I think two things: (i) it is limited to those faiths that those in power agree to, and (ii) believing in something without any evidence is not a good qualification for public office.
Keep religion out of public office and if people must worship some god or other then let them do it in the privacy of their own homes.
The arrogance of clergy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxmLJ14mNA
Ditto to GFTess, Welcome to the fray!
Ah, who is "they"? Not the Founders and not any of us in this discussion.
In reply #12, I wrote: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every one free exercise of religion.And history demonstrates the First Amendment became a vehicle to promote pluralism of religions. Even the early courts acknowledged that America was pluralistic of other religions other than Christianity.The First Amendment's prohibition of "an establishment of religion" was designed to restrict neither religious beliefs nor religious activities, but only the federal establishment of a national religion. After that,the issue of religion was left to the States.
That's mighty generous of you with our inalienable freedom! NOT. But this sentiment of yours is the same one we hear from the Secular and Atheist Humanists here in America.
Coming from England, have you tried that attitude with the fast growing Muslim population there?
Good we are in agreement. I also don't believe in fairies.
You killed Tinkerbell!
I have the same attitude with each and every religion - why should someone's belief in the supernatural play a part in government?
By the way I've always been fascinated by the way each and every religion claims to be the true faith. A few thousand years ago everyone worshipped the sun, the it was multiple gods then it became monotheism... so difficult to keep up!
GFTESS,
Your # 86 contains some good, thought provoking questions.
I don't think that the second part supersedes the first part.
Yes, for sure, defining terms is very important.
By Religion, I mean the act by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, obedience and worship due to Him, and in the way prescribed by Him.
The dictionary definition of "religion" is 1. Belief in God or gods. 2. Worship of God or gods. 3. A particular system of religious belief and worship.
I would say my definition reflects #3 of the dictionary definition. My particular system of religious belief is the way prescribed by God, namely Catholicism. For the Muslim, it would be Islam; for the Protestant, that would be any one of a thousand of sects; for the Secularist and Atheist, that would be the practice of Secular or Atheistic Humanism; their god is man. For the Satanist, their god is the devil.
Now, on to defining "religious freedom" as per the First Amendment...
Religion, the free exercise thereof--might mean the physical freedom to exercise (to practice ) your religion (whatever that particular system of religious belief it might be) unencumbered by the Federal Government. This would mean the government can't pass a law and you can't be arrested and thrown in jail for going to church, temple or mosque. That happens under Communism or other totalitarian States.
OR Religion, the free exercise thereof ---might mean that a person is conscienciously free to choose and practice any religion of their choice.
Or it could be both.
AND THUS THE CONUNDRUM that you bring up in your next question when you ask,
As I see it, by Religion, the free exercise thereof, the Founders were encouraging religious pluralism and (possibly unintentionally) were fostering Indifferentism (the notion that all religions with their competing claims are all equally valid and should be freely chosen and practiced).
I think it's a huge error that will eventually bring America's demise...the culture's going to collapse because from the notion of religious freedom is that there should be no religious freedom, at least when it comes to some religions.
What do you expect, I'm a big mouth, but only one vote.
And in this day and age under the dictatorship of moral relativism, what is and who are the "radical elements"?
The courts have deemed Secular Humanism a Religion. And if you've ever read the Humanist Manifestos I and II, you will know exactly what their religious belief system is based. Why should the religious beliefs and dogmatic claims of Secular and Atheistic Humanism that support abortion, homosexual 'marriage' and other evils play a part in Government?
Can the government that supports the religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism really be expected to protect the First Amendment rights of those who practice Christianity?
That's exactly what we are up against today and the focus of Jythier's blog.
Really? It happens every day to pro-life people like me. Think abortion clinics. Let alone in any building, I/we are forbidden to walk or stand in front of any abortion clinic while praying.
I'd say that's suppressing my First Amendment right of free speech.
And check out this
http://www.lifesitenews.com/home/print_article/news/37332/
Two girls handcuffed and arrested for handing out pro-life literature.
Academia, government education, publishing, Hollywood, the mainstream media, Science, Wall Street, banking, most town and city councils, the unions, ..in short, just about everything since the 1960 cultural and sexual revolutions.
The few control the many.
I know said the devil: “Let's get this worldwide conspiracy going and only involve all the best minds and the most educated people of all nations on earth and combine their resources 'like one' so that we can crush the decadent RCC “... works for me too, just wish it were true??? Reality check needed here! Geese this sounds so familiar … oh I know … the ‘tree of knowledge’ imagine that. Knowledge being the one thing that magic cannot BS … and so it is taboo to theocracy and disliked by god too.
Why are you so set that the minds on your side are the best? That's a bit arrogant, wouldn't you say?
Gee, all I did was give a truthful answer to your question.
Agree. But take a look at your remarks and you'll see that you don't do what you say. Instead of leaving Christianity and Christians alone, it's been one put-down, slam and attack after another.
I left out the "and personal" part because I think it is near impossible to keep one's religious beliefs personal, even for those who practice Secular and Atheistic Humanism.
Good question.
C'mon? I didn't ignore your question; I answered it and responded to those numbers (80% Christian/9% Atheist/Agnostic) you provided saying, " the few (9% Atheist/Agnostics) control the many (80% Christians)."
The few (9% Atheists/Agnostics) control Academia, publishing, Science, etc. and as a result the many (80% Christians) are getting Secular and Atheistic Humanism handed to them every which way.
The First Amendment was meant to prevent the establishment of a national religion. James Madison termed "religion" as "the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it." But the Founders couldn't foresee that the Supreme Court would take an active role in expanding the definition of "religion" to include Secular Humanism which seeks to dethrone God preferring faith in man. So yes, the Founders refused to establish a national religion, yet that is indeed what we have today---Secular and Atheistic Humanism has become our national religion. As a result, the culture war is on against Christianity, its principles, ethos, and morals.
More to the point it's your remark that's bad.
There are intelligent and dim-witted people on both sides of the Culture War. But it isn't about one's IQ, level of education or being rich or poor; in the end, it's about recognizing and living the important truths of life. Even children grasp wisdom.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
