Uncle Al wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:51 pm
The overt sensitivity to "words" is what will bring an end to society as we know it.
This was part of my point about disagreeableness being a good thing.
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:07 am
Carl said,
Nope. It guarantees freedom "of" religion, and prohibits the establishment of a State religion. Only one Constitution in the world has guaranteed a freedom from religion, and that was the one of the now-defunct Soviet Union.
Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.
In addition, while it may be a common belief, it is not accurate to say that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, much less that we are such a nation. The majority of the Founding Fathers were
not Christians; there was quite a bit of diversity in their religious beliefs. The largest percentage of them were Deists; that is, those who believe that there is no God outside of the totality of creation. Or in modern parlance, the Universe. For the record, I learned this in 6th or 7th grade from the books in my school library that I used for reference in one of the papers I wrote for my History class.
You are right that a number of the big name founders of this country were deists, rather than Christians. (We straight up discussed this stuff in public school American history classes.) Percentages would be nearly impossible to come by, however, both from not knowing the inner thoughts of many, to the question of who to count. I imagine more of the guys who carried muskets in the Revolutionary War were Christians, while the intellectuals drafting the founding documents had a higher percentage of deists.
My understanding of deist beliefs was more along the line of there being a singular supreme being that created everything but isn't very involved now. Not so much a reverence for the universe. I'm sure it varied a lot even then. Some were also freemasons, which is another discussion, but related.
At the time of the founding (and when the Bill of Rights was passed), at least one state (Massachusetts, I think) had a state religion. This was not seen to be in conflict with the First Amendment at the time. I believe Maryland was the first to put freedom of religion into law. It was put in place by a shrinking (percentage wise) Catholic majority, while it was still a colony.
Now if, as you claim, the state cannot support religious practices
at all under the First Amendment, how does that square with circumcision (a religious practice for Jews and Muslims) and abortion (claimed as a rite by satanists) being paid for by the government under the guise of medical care? While I wish both would go away, clearly it's not that cut and dry. The Supreme Court has always tried to take a more nuanced position than what you describe, one that has shifted a bit over the years.
Some lawyers have tried (generally unsuccessfully) to argue that war memorials with Christian symbolism have to come down. Or that a Christian who works for a public school can't be seen praying while on school property. This is obvious nonsense. But where to draw the line between that and the state mandating religious practices or paying for the construction of new churches or mosques (as has been done in other countries) is kind of fuzzy, and likely up for debate. How is it we have chapels in most public airports in the US? What sort of taxes or tax breaks can be applied to religious institutions? Either could be seen as a problem.
crfriend wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:25 pm
In
theory, yes. However, in
practise, no. That's not how it works, else we'd not be awash in ignorant commentary from Deuteronomy and the Southern Baptist Convention wouldn't be calling the shots in elections. The simple fact is that the United States is more awash in religion than it is with guns, and it's easier to abuse the former than the latter because there are laws about the latter.
We have both a freedom to practice religion, and a freedom to talk about it. Positively or negatively. We can debate religion right along with everything else.
Freedom of speech sometimes means speech that is stupid, offensive, and wrong. But we are also free to call it out if we see it that way. And freedom of religion does not mean that religious leaders can't have influence, just like anyone else. There are leaders with cult like followings, both religious and secular, that I would rather no one listened to, but I can't stop them. I can try to convince their followers to stop following them. But the government can't shut the leader down, unless they do something illegal. And being ignorant isn't illegal.