Freedom of Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chancellare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chancellare

Guest
Researches done on the real meaning of 1st Amendment has shown that current US Justice system does not protect real freedom of religion for all.
I can provide some citations if needed, but I would like to know the views and level of awareness among posters who read this.
 
Chancellare said:
Researches done on the real meaning of 1st Amendment has shown that current US Justice system does not protect real freedom of religion for all.
I can provide some citations if needed, but I would like to know the views and level of awareness among posters who read this.
Click to expand...
I think citations are necessary before any real discussion can occur.
 
I don’t see where we are not free to believe. But this means no imposition from the government. Our leaders in the government can express their views but the government as an entity must remain neutral.
 
Chancellare:

A definition is required first. Right now there are so called classed religions that base precepts suggest the annihilation of others. So we can see these aren’t religions but tools to fullfill human evil. I admit enforcement will be a hair raising problem has some of these are formidable and have been established for centuries, but nonetheless necessary.

I feel definitions should include: that every religion’s doctrine is a positive force to advance the well being of every person, and that the worship is to a God, not a goat,rock,star,etc.

AndyF
 
There was a Supreme Court case that wouldn’t allow certain Native Americans to practice religious ceremonies that involved hallucinogenic drugs. Likewise, I’m sure human sacrifice would be shut down if someone tried to restart the Aztec religion. Religious freedom is not absolute nor should it be.
 
My first citation comes from Michael Sandel’s assertion in The American Myth of Religous Freedom by K. Craycraft Jr:
In recent Supreme Court rulings, the liberal idea of religious liberty does not afford the same protection to the religious believer as to the non-believer.
This is because the Christianity that has taken roots in America is not the ‘Historical Christianity’ but a post-Christian Religion known as American liberalism.
Case in point:
Liberalism cannot understand the difference between choosing as a result of persuasive evidence or simple assertion of the will on the other hand, and , on the other hand, being prompted by grace, sacrament, or providence, mediated by a church, tradition and other forms of religious authority. This means liberalism cannot grasp the idea that some decisions are not simple assertions of unfettered choice, but rather prompted by something outside the person and his private conscience.
There are tremendous religious consequences arising from the above.
 
It has long been my contention that the Supreme Court erred in law in saying that you could not allow prayer or reference to religion in schools. By so doing they have taken an official stand in favor of atheism as opposed to theism or any specific existing religion. The fact they have taken a religion stance (no religion is a religious stance) they have in effect endorsed a particular religious position. The most they could have done in keeping with the wording of the constitution would have been to say that prayer or mention of religious subjects could neither be mandated nor forbidden.

Matthew
 
drafdog said:
The most they could have done in keeping with the wording of the constitution would have been to say that prayer or mention of religious subjects could neither be mandated nor forbidden.

Matthew
Click to expand...
Amen! 👍
 
This will always be debated because divorcing religion from reality and/or trying to act as if the truth about something is a matter of personal preference is an impossible task.
 
drafdog said:
The most they could have done in keeping with the wording of the constitution would have been to say that prayer or mention of religious subjects could neither be mandated nor forbidden.

Matthew
Click to expand...
I started this thread because I realized that, after some readings, US Jurisprudence has adopted the fundamental view that ‘neutrality’ toward religion is essential to protecting all selves. But the ‘selves’ it recognizes as legitimate are ‘unencumbered’ ones, meaning only those who impugn the legitimacy of religious truth that imposes itself upon the mind or soul. US courts therefore consider any community which presumes a natural or supernatural claim over the consciences and wills of its members to have an illiberal and thus illegitimate view of man. In effect, such community and its members are eased out of the legal protection as we know it.
As such US jurisprudence cannot reverse itself and therefore can only rule accordingly: that prayers in public constitute a violation of ‘neutrality’ as defined above. Good for the atheists but sorry for believers. That makes ‘equal protection’ a sham.
Therein lies the root of many a consternation among historical Christians such as Catholics.
 
Chancellare said:
that prayers in public constitute a violation of ‘neutrality’ as defined above
Click to expand...
There is a vast difference between “prayers in public” (which, btw, are are far from illegal, they happen all the time) and “prayers done by a public official in his/her role as a representative of some branch of the US government with the expectation that all present will participate”.

Consider the following situations:
A) A president of private religious school leading the students and teachers of that school in a prayer at a school assembly.
B) member of a city council quietly praying to herself for guidance at any point during a meeting.
C) the chairman of the same city council standing up before every council meeting and saying “let us all bow our heads and join in offering a prayer for guidance in this meeting” and proceeds to pray aloud.
D) the teacher in a public elementary school calls the class together by the bus before leaving on a field trip and says: “let us all bow our heads and join in prayer for protection as we travel on our field trip today” and proceeds to pray aloud.

I would consider the first two to be unexceptional, but the second two to cross a line in terms of a person acting as a representative of the state publicly endorsing, in their role as that representative, a particular religion.
 
There are still some remnants of Christianity in certain parts of our public spaces. Like the sculptures and lettering on the frieze of the U.S. Supreme Court and prayer before the sessions of Congress. However it has come to be since Hugo Black, about 1947, discerned that after the Constitution had been adopted, Thomas Jefferson had spoken of “a wall of separation between Church and State” and the court decided that this was how the Constitution was to be interpreted. There was to be no prayer in public spaces or religious symbols. Public spaces included schools, City Halls, Court Houses etc. It would seem that some public buildings that had displays were grandfathered in.

It does in a sense protect all of us whether Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist as someone from a different faith group than our own cannot stuff their beliefs and prayers in our faces in public spaces.

Many alive today do not remember when Public Schools were rief with protestant ideas and attitudes. It was one of the main reasons why Bishops insisted that Catholic children attend Catholic schools; in some cases threatening parents with excommunication if they did not obey his mandate. Freedom of practicing one’s overtly Catholic Christianity in a public place would likely not have been tolerated. Before J.F.K. a Catholic could not even be elected president, not because there was a law against it, but because the country as a whole would not accept it.

Before the 1930’s, roughly speaking, contraceptives, abortion, selling on Sunday, particularly liquor, and some other actions were against the law. Largely, laws laid down by non-Catholic governments. It was not Catholics who instituted those blue laws. In those days many Catholics would not do anything different unless they “asked Father” first. The laws sometimes coincided with what Father said.

All that being said, I am of the opinion that the courts have gone too far with their “Wall of Separation.”
 
Chancellare said:
Researches done on the real meaning of 1st Amendment has shown that current US Justice system does not protect real freedom of religion for all.
I can provide some citations if needed, but I would like to know the views and level of awareness among posters who read this.
Click to expand...
I would ask you to blend that research with Natural Moral Law which is encrypted into the hearts of men by God. Meaning any man and man’s institution is directly influenced. The objective of the Constitution was to limit Government not to limit religion. The founding fathers never intended the current condition, probably never conceive this condition as possible.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
The founding fathers never intended the current condition, probably never conceive this condition as possible.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers were also not gods, nor were most even philosophers. Just because they never considered “this condition” doesn’t mean that this condition is bad. Even if they would have disliked this condition, that doesn’t automatically mean that this condition is bad.

In any case, we were founded on Enlightenment principles, not specifically Christian ones.
 
Benedictus said:
The founding fathers were also not gods, nor were most even philosophers. Just because they never considered “this condition” doesn’t mean that this condition is bad. Even if they would have disliked this condition, that doesn’t automatically mean that this condition is bad.

In any case, we were founded on Enlightenment principles, not specifically Christian ones.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers wrote and ratified the constitution which we are now interpreting. So the current issue cannot be interpreted as intended on this issue. In affect we violated the constitution to increase federal authority and to begin the process of moving toward an atheist based society. The constitution simply never allowed such authority. To say it is unconstitutional to practice religion is to say the original constitution has been completely subverted.
 
KarenNC said:
I would consider the first two to be unexceptional, but the second two to cross a line in terms of a person acting as a representative of the state publicly endorsing, in their role as that representative, a particular religion.
Click to expand...
This is where the ‘neutrality’ principle will favor non-religion. In your example of the representative of the state, his actions can only favor non-religion because he cannot perform his prayers based on his religious conviction.
First Amendment favors non-religion.
This has been one of the conclusions from current jurisprudence, which is not what was intended by the founding fathers who were all products of Christian beliefs to the last man.
What does that say about ‘equal protection’ in law?
 
Chancellare said:
This is where the ‘neutrality’ principle will favor non-religion. In your example of the representative of the state, his actions can only favor non-religion because he cannot perform his prayers based on his religious conviction.
First Amendment favors non-religion.
This has been one of the conclusions from current jurisprudence, which is not what was intended by the founding fathers who were all products of Christian beliefs to the last man.
What does that say about ‘equal protection’ in law?
Click to expand...
Then you would be happy with the following conclusions to those examples?

C) the chairman of the same city council standing up before every council meeting and saying “let us all bow our heads and join in offering a prayer for guidance in this meeting” and proceeds to pray aloud. “Almighty Athena, Gracious Goddess of Wisdom and Governance, please lend us Your wisdom as we hold our meeting here today. Each of us asks that Your guidance fall upon each and every one of us as we are gathered here, that we may make decisions that are in accordance with Your will, which we know to be superior to our limited human understanding. In the name of the most wise and gracious Athena, Amen.”

D) the teacher in a public elementary school calls the class together by the bus before leaving on a field trip and says: “let us all bow our heads and join in prayer for protection as we travel on our field trip today” and proceeds to pray aloud, offering libations and prayers to Athena and Hermes: “Almighty Athena, Gracious Goddess of Wisdom, please lend us Your wisdom as we approach our studies today. Let Your guidance fall upon each and every one of us as we are gathered here, that we may honor You by our efforts. Swift Hermes, Messenger of the Gods, protect us as we go on our field trip, guiding and guarding all our travels so that we may return safely, held in Your protective arms. Accept these offerings of oil and wine on behalf of everyone present in token of our gratitude to You for Your gifts. In the names of Athena and Hermes, Amen.” Then pours oil and wine on the ground as a libation before the children board the bus, perhaps offering one of the children the opportunity to do the pouring.

These are the prayers that I would be saying and actions that I would be taking were I to follow your suggestion to freely exercise my religion in a role as a representative of the state. Please note that I am also just as much a “product of Christian belief” as any of the Founding Fathers, having been raised in a very thoroughly Christian saturated community and home, attending church every time the doors were open and more.
 
KarenNC said:
Then you would be happy with the following conclusions to those examples?

C) the chairman of the same city council standing up before every council meeting and saying “let us all bow our heads and join in offering a prayer for guidance in this meeting” and proceeds to pray aloud. “Almighty Athena, Gracious Goddess of Wisdom and Governance, please lend us Your wisdom as we hold our meeting here today. Each of us asks that Your guidance fall upon each and every one of us as we are gathered here, that we may make decisions that are in accordance with Your will, which we know to be superior to our limited human understanding. In the name of the most wise and gracious Athena, Amen.”

D) the teacher in a public elementary school calls the class together by the bus before leaving on a field trip and says: “let us all bow our heads and join in prayer for protection as we travel on our field trip today” and proceeds to pray aloud, offering libations and prayers to Athena and Hermes: “Almighty Athena, Gracious Goddess of Wisdom, please lend us Your wisdom as we approach our studies today. Let Your guidance fall upon each and every one of us as we are gathered here, that we may honor You by our efforts. Swift Hermes, Messenger of the Gods, protect us as we go on our field trip, guiding and guarding all our travels so that we may return safely, held in Your protective arms. Accept these offerings of oil and wine on behalf of everyone present in token of our gratitude to You for Your gifts. In the names of Athena and Hermes, Amen.” Then pours oil and wine on the ground as a libation before the children board the bus, perhaps offering one of the children the opportunity to do the pouring.

These are the prayers that I would be saying and actions that I would be taking were I to follow your suggestion to freely exercise my religion in a role as a representative of the state. Please note that I am also just as much a “product of Christian belief” as any of the Founding Fathers, having been raised in a very thoroughly Christian saturated community and home, attending church every time the doors were open and more.
Click to expand...
If the founding fathers, council members and the children in the bus were predominantly Athena worshippers, yes.
 
drafdog said:
It has long been my contention that the Supreme Court erred in law in saying that you could not allow prayer or reference to religion in schools. By so doing they have taken an official stand in favor of atheism as opposed to theism or any specific existing religion. The fact they have taken a religion stance (no religion is a religious stance) they have in effect endorsed a particular religious position. The most they could have done in keeping with the wording of the constitution would have been to say that prayer or mention of religious subjects could neither be mandated nor forbidden.

Matthew
Click to expand...
The framers of the constitution did not intend to favor atheism. But the definition of ‘neutrality’ as defined in case law on religious matter made non-religion the official religion of the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top