Religious Freedom in the US

[kalt]

What religions do you think should be covered by freedom of religion? Which not?

Non-Catholic Christians, would you ban the Catholic Church in the Us if it were possible?

 

[Scottishguy]

Well freedom of religion should include all world religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and countless numbers of others.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

What religions do you think should be covered by freedom of religion? Which not?

I think all major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc) most definitely, and even minor religions (Judaism, Ba’hai, etc). Even “sects” like Mormonism, Ahmadi, etc should be allowed to worship. So long as these religions respect the basic laws of the nation and respect the freedom of worship of each other, there shouldn’t be a problem.

I think the issue facing our country today, however, is what the true definition of “freedom of religion” means. Fulton Sheen once pointed out that freedom of something usually meant freedom from something. Freedom of religion should mean freedom from religious persecution. For example, if a Muslim immigrates from the Yugoslav nations to America to escape the religious persecution that often happens there, they should be allowed the freedom to worship in their own way here.

The problem is that so many today take the post-modern approach to religion, and so freedom of religion is more like freedom from dogma. How many times have you heard a public prayer that invoked the Trinity? How many times have you heard a public prayer that involved the name Jesus? And I speak of all these happening at secular events where they wish to have some religion. This, of course, is limitation of religion, because you’re telling people they can’t worship the way their religion worships. If I ask a Muslim to say a prayer at a public event, I shouldn’t feel offended if he invokes the name of Allah or quotes the Koran - that’s how a Muslim worships. Likewise, someone shouldn’t get offended if they ask a Christian to pray (especially a Catholic or Orthodox) and they begin with, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…”

The very heart of the matter is that society expects religion, but they don’t expect faith. Those are two very different things that matter a great deal.

Non-Catholic Christians, would you ban the Catholic Church in the Us if it were possible?

Pfft, course not.

 

[BrianH]

The issue would not be, at least in America, which religions should be covered by
freedom of religion, the answer is all that I can think of. Oh sure, there might be a religion or two thats central purpose is advocating the death of a certain group or individual. I am not familiar with those kind of groups enough to cite any of them.
The question is what religious practices should be covered. The answer to that is they should only be restricted when they break federal, state, or local laws. Well then that goes to whether or not the laws are too restrictive and violate freedom of religion (polygamy being an example). That is where the courts step in. While we might disagree with their decisions, in general they do a fairly good job of producting freedom of religion.
Naturally I am not a fundamentalist Mormon and they would understandably disagree with me!
Of I would not ban Catholics.

 

[Convert66]

Why don’t we just ban nominal Christianity–cafeteria Catholicism and Feel-Good, Health-and-Wealth gospel Protestantism and, generally, Social Christianity and Civic Religion.

Whattya SAY!!!:knight2: Who’s With ME!!!:nunchuk:

 

[AJTheMan]

Every single religion, belief, faith, philosophy, or organized group of shared ideology should be allowed under the freedom of religion clause.

 

[Holly3278]

All religions and ideologies should be covered by the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution.

 

[steg]

I totally agree… all people should have the right to worship the divine as they see fit. No civil law should be enacted that contradicts this, within reason (nothing that interferes with someone else’s rights.)

I would not even consider banning Catholicism, even though early Catholicism forcefully banned all other religions, including mine…

 

[4Squarebaby]

No religion should be banned. The problem is who decides if Charlie Manson, David Koresh and the like are leaders of a new religious movements or con men using their natural leadership skill to commit crimes under the guise of religion?

I guess the last high media profile case was that of the Fundamentalist LDS in Texas? It seems as if the State of Texas now thinks that the FLDS is a true religion as the case has faded from the headlines.

 

[AJTheMan]

No religion should be banned. The problem is who decides if Charlie Manson, David Koresh and the like are leaders of a new religious movements or con men using their natural leadership skill to commit crimes under the guise of religion?

I guess the last high media profile case was that of the Fundamentalist LDS in Texas? It seems as if the State of Texas now thinks that the FLDS is a true religion as the case has faded from the headlines.

America has had a long-standing rule that has never changed: Worship how you want and where you want but if your practices interfere the laws of public safety, you will be arrested for it.

This is why Rasta faith, which is a religion based around cannabis, would be very hard to practice in the united states.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Oh sure, there might be a religion or two thats central purpose is advocating the death of a certain group or individual. I am not familiar with those kind of groups enough to cite any of them.

---

Mahometanism is one.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

What religions do you think should be covered by freedom of religion? Which not?

Non-Catholic Christians, would you ban the Catholic Church in the Us if it were possible?

Allow me to nit-pick a bit:

Religions are not granted any rights by the constitution; individuals are.

Every individual should and does have the right to practice any religion they choose as long as such practice doesn’t violate any laws that are found to be constitutional.

 

[kalt]

Allow me to nit-pick a bit:

Religions are not granted any rights by the constitution; individuals are.

Every individual should and does have the right to practice any religion they choose as long as such practice doesn’t violate any laws that are found to be constitutional.

I think that that’s not strictly true. Religions are allowed to ignore certain laws. For example, an employer can’t deny employment or education based on sex, but the Catholic Church doesn’t allow females in the priesthood. They can’t be deacons either. Men can’t be nuns. In the secular world, women can be doctors and men can be nurses, though women had to fight to enjoy the right.

There seem to be some rights that apply to individuals outside religion that don’t apply within religion. So the Catholic Church (any church, mosque, or synagogue) can discriminate (from the secular perspective) against women in the priesthood.

 

[kalt]

I think that that’s not strictly true. Religions are allowed to ignore certain laws. For example, an employer can’t deny employment or education based on sex, but the Catholic Church doesn’t allow females in the priesthood. They can’t be deacons either. Men can’t be nuns. In the secular world, women can be doctors and men can be nurses, though women had to fight to enjoy the right.

There seem to be some rights that apply to individuals outside religion that don’t apply within religion. So the Catholic Church (any church, mosque, or synagogue) can discriminate (from the secular perspective) against women in the priesthood.

Wanted to add–but too late to edit.

“education” above should be advancement.

Several posters here have commented on the Catholic Church’s stance on female priests. They’ve made the same observation about Islam, though, interestingly, not about Judaism. They, along with the secular world, see this as discrimination, which isn’t allowed by US law.

The individual’s rights are being trampled, according to those who disagree with the Church’s stance on the priesthood.

The FLDS churches aren’t allowed to practice plural marriage, because it violates the law. But aren’t the Jews, Muslims, and some Christians violating the law when they don’t allow women in the priesthood? And there is no recourse to the courts for these individuals. These religions, not the individuals, are enjoying certain rigthts afforded them by “freedom of religion” it seems. They, in the secular and more liberal Christian perspective, are violating individuals’ rights, and yet they enjoy the priviledges of a relgiion - tax-exempt status and the right to opperate under the radar, apparently, when it comes to certain laws.

This, of course, is according to the secular and the more liberal Christian perspective (those Christians who believe that women should be priests).

I wonder if the people who think that it’s wrong to keep women from the priesthood think that these religions (Catholism, Islam, and some forms of Judaism) should be “covered”.

 

[sedonaman]

What religions do you think should be covered by freedom of religion? Which not?

Non-Catholic Christians, would you ban the Catholic Church in the Us if it were possible?

I think a definition of “religion” is in order first.

 

[meridith]

Why don’t we just ban nominal Christianity–cafeteria Catholicism and Feel-Good, Health-and-Wealth gospel Protestantism and, generally, Social Christianity and Civic Religion.

Whattya SAY!!!:knight2: Who’s With ME!!!:nunchuk:

LOL

 

[NotTooSmart]

What religions do you think should be covered by freedom of religion? Which not?

Non-Catholic Christians, would you ban the Catholic Church in the Us if it were possible?

Caveat: I have stong libertarian leanings.

In my kingdom, there would be absolutely no religions banned.

And the only religious practices that would be banned would be those in which there is a clear victim.

The only way I know the government will protect my religious liberties is if I see it protecting the religious liberties of well…marginal groups.

 

[cthulhubryan]

All religions and ideologies should be covered by the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution.

Not exactly. Anyone remember the ill-fated Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)?

While a good idea in principle, it was atrocious in execution. So many “new” “religions” sprang up overnight. The most famous of these which gathered a large number of “converts” in prisons was the “Church of Marijuana”

Any “real” religions should be covered by the Constitutions, but not “religions” founded for the express purpose of circumventing existing law. Other examples: We would not allow a restoration of Toltec religions as they deal with and require human sacrifice.

When we get into the area it gets gray and creepy. Certain American Indian tribes (most notably the Hopi) are allowed limited harvest and usage Mescaline “button” cacti which produce the Mescal that causes one to enter the spirit realm / have vivid hallucinations (depending on who is describing the process) but we do not allow “new” religions to use the same plant or other proscribed vegetation/fungus such as a psyillsiben mushroom.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I think that that’s not strictly true. Religions are allowed to ignore certain laws. For example, an employer can’t deny employment or education based on sex, but the Catholic Church doesn’t allow females in the priesthood. They can’t be deacons either. Men can’t be nuns. In the secular world, women can be doctors and men can be nurses, though women had to fight to enjoy the right.

There seem to be some rights that apply to individuals outside religion that don’t apply within religion. So the Catholic Church (any church, mosque, or synagogue) can discriminate (from the secular perspective) against women in the priesthood.

I think this has to do with the nature of the organization rather than it being a religion. The Boy Scouts of America is not a religious organization yet it is allowed to refuse membership to openly gay boys/men as well as open atheists. The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the BSA’s right to do so, even despite it’s use of public property.

Religions are not allowed to “break the law”, rather certain laws are deemed unconstitutional after-the-fact due to the law discriminating against a particular individual’s practice of a religion. I know the distinction might seem unnecessary yet we see relevant examples of it almost daily in the courts. Let’s say they passed a law that unconstitutionally targeted Catholics. I couldn’t simply as a Catholic challenge it in court unless I could prove that I, individually, was legally harmed by it. I couldn’t sue the US government on 1st amendment grounds claiming that a particular law would force my clergy to do something against the faith since I’m not a cleric. I couldn’t sue the state concerning an abortion law that I felt unfairly affected Catholic hospitals since I’m not employed by such a hospital.