Is Freedom Of Religion Making Sense Fundamentally?

He has repeatedly spoken of the majority's rights to do as they please to the exclusion of the minority or individual.

That's what people said about more invasive privacy breeches for national security's sake. We have to accept that at a point when we compromise our foundational values, it does cost something.

Now of course people are free to say this isn't a big deal. Maybe it isn't. I just see this as more church/state blurring where we could easily solve this with "on your own time, ladies/gents." An argument from tradition is a terrible way to justify something. Coming from the country that once held slaves and treated women as inferior to men.

I also, coincidentally, fail to see how you can endorse Sparthosx when he's essentially saying the exact same thing I am.


Edit: About to travel and engage in evening activities soon, not running away, so I will leave you with this:

My issues with religion do stem from a very personal place. So I will grant you a bias involved. So if I attack your religion in personal life, you are correct to call me out. But I just can't see how it's possibly ok to have it involved in government. At all.

I'm not trying to force people to not believe in God. That would make me a hypocrite. That's a decision people have to come to on their own if we're ever to cast off our societal need for religion. It can't be forced.

But I will forever maintain that as pertains to the topic, I'm right here. Religion in government is at best for show, and at worst influencing lawmakers in inappropriate ways.

I love you sometimes Sparth, no-homo.

My argument is "let society decide"

If the majority of a small town wants to have prayer before every board meeting, then why should you say otherwise?

If the majority of a state wants to have prayer before every legislation meeting, and you are not part of that state, then why should you say otherwise? Heck, even if you are part of the state, the majority rules.

Demanding that the state or city or town or county change their proceedings to suit your needs because you are a minority just shows how much you want to rule over everyone's lives.

But I did not say "leave religion at the door"

I shall dub the blurring of state and church as... Sturch!

It shouldn't be the decision of the majority as it's infringing upon the rights of the minority, we don't live in a democracy.

Yes, the majority.

If you don't like what the majority is doing, move. Move to somewhere where you can enjoy yourself.

Because ask yourself this: Would you rather live in a place where you are miserable, or where you are happy?

So, we don't live in a republic, and we don't live in a democracy, so where do we live now Jet?

Eh... the majority isn't always in the right. Also, if you want majority rule to be the key to making reform you might be disapointed by some of the outcomes.

I think it's great that people oppose the main stream when they believe in something. I believe people like this open up doors and ask questions that we should be asking. Maybe they have a better way maybe not but it's still important to ask.

Just because the majority might be ok to stumble about doing the same ol' for whatever reason doesn't make it the best path for us ro even a legal path.

You live camped out on my lawn.


GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMNED KIDS! *shakes grandpa stick*

When did I (or anyone one else with a brain for that matter) say we weren't a republic?

I do like a nice lawn chair.

Tyranny of the masses KN, look it up brah.

If a majority passes an ordinance banning members of a certain religious group from their town, are you going to defend that? They did vote on it afterall. Guess what? That's how sectarian *** starts. Same thing eating up such haunts as Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe.

Like it or not, this is the United States and though the feds can get oppressive at times, this is not a free for all and we do have some ground rules in this country.

It's not. Local governments will continue to avoid religious displays despite it being constitutionally allowed because of the hassle of implementing it fairly and because the threat of any missteps would lead to costly litigation. Oh yeah, you'll get retards, like the one in the article I linked, who completely miss the point of these decisions but ultimately, having this straightened out in the courtroom makes it easier to bitchslap their fundie *** back into place.

For better or worse, tradition plays a major role in constitutional interpretation, and religion is intrinsically tied to the very founding of the nation. No, this doesn't imply we are a "Christian Nation" or any of that garbage, but SCOTUS does not take any abrogation of religious freedoms lightly and will do whatever it can to preserve tradition wherever feasible.

If you haven't read the opinions of the Court yet, I would recommend it if for nothing else than to see for yourself how weak the argument against the ruling was compared to the majority opinion.

Once, a while back. I will have to look it up though.

If I did, I must have been high.

Have any town/city/state in the entire history of the US passed such ordinance, and not been challenged in court?

I recall you saying that also.

Think you both be high then...

To Jetackuu's credit, he kept trying to explain that the US is a republic, and not a democracy.

See I recall doing that.

The U.S. is just a reality show for the rest of the world to watch and laugh at. Reality TV government.

So THAT'S why we have CSPAN!

Satanic Prayer Will Open Florida Town Council Meeting If Chaz Stevens Has His Way

Ehhhh, I'd give the troll attempt a 6/10. Too blunt.

Poor Christian who finally realizes your religion is declining and you actually have to use proof instead of a two thousand year old book to prove a point.

*hands you a tissue*

Study: Young Latinos losing faith

Very active? Give me a break, the Dems play to religion for votes as much as any Republican. You're not religious or conservative, just delusional. Democrats just bundle religion in a more kid-friendly manner because damning your gay donors to eternal torment isn't how you get fundraised. While Republicans cling to that old time religion, the Democrats subscribe to Jesus: Prince of Persia Peace.

Christian supremacy is a disease like Islamic and Jewish supremacy best cut off at the knees before the religious fanatics plunge the world back into centuries of darkness. Just because people call out the bad acts of religion doesn't mean they want to ban public worship, just keep it out of government.

Actually .... the definition of a democracy is such that if they aren't replaced, then the majority of their constituents agreed with what they did.

People elect government representatives, people are the ones responsible for voting. What your crying against is that you honestly feel people are too stupid to properly vote for your ideas and thus shouldn't be allowed to vote unless it's in agreement with your ideas. That is not a democracy but an authoritarian regime on the kind that we see in North Korea.

Here's a clue, politicians are not stupid. You can't get to where they are without climbing over piles of political bodies first. In order for them to get where they are, they had to first beat people smarter and more resourced then you. Once you realize that, you should then realize that everything they do is theater. They are acting that way so as to appeal to the people who voted them into office. They are no more religious then you or I but go through the motions because the people who elected them feel there should be some sort of "divine" guidance involved.

As for the American political system, it's not design to be efficient or to produce the "correct" answer, because there is no correct answer. The system is designed to be the exact opposite, to be so convoluted and difficult that it's impossible for King Romney II (insert oligarch / aristocrat of choice)to exist. The powers involved spend so much of their time / energy fighting each other that the common man can go about his / her business without interference from a federal government. Rules and laws are supposed to be decided locally because state representatives are close and more knowledgeable of what their constituents desire.

Anyway the Constitution does not forbid expressing religion, it actually protects everyone's right to equally express their own religion. Atheists can hate it all day long, but your right to be an Atheist is protected by the exact same rule that you so despise. Atheism is just another religion and the US Government can't show Atheism any preference by enforcing a removal of non-Atheist religions.