Posted on Dec 24, 2015
Would you support the removal of all legislation that inhibits religious freedom?
12K
105
75
7
7
0
It was written that,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." should laws that restrict religion be stricken from the books nationwide?
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Constitution
Freedom
Bill of Rights
God
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 24
8
8
0
The term 'religious freedom' means different things to different people. Many right-wing Christian evangelicals will say that opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples inhibits their religious freedom (here's a hint, it does not).
(8)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Maj John Bell - The pastor who performed your marriage wasn't forced by the government to officiate your ceremony. That's the point. And in all fairness, the Priest who forced the pastor to perform the ceremony was in the wrong.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Maj John Bell - In fact, I think I'd argue that the Priest who gave that order was making an illegal order.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Given that the Naval Academy policy was that only military chaplains could perform marriages in the USNA Chapel, and that military chaplains do not have the luxury of only performing their duties for people of the same sect, I doubt that the order was illegal. Besides, he was offered an out. He was free to resign his position if he felt it was incompatible with his beliefs.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I have no problem with that as long as my rights as a Christian are not infringed. I have no problem with others who respect my rights exercising theirs.
(6)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
Yeah, Christians are such a fringe group here in America. Some day, I hope you have the opportunity to have houses of worship that are out in the open, and maybe a chance to offer prayers to your franchise of religion at public meetings, and legislated into the words of national Pledges...
(1)
(0)
SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury
I'm not one of those crying about how inclusion of others is infringing on my rights. Sorry if that is your interpretation of my statement. I'm just saying that as long as people can worship as they will - then good for all. That goes for those who are humanist or atheist. Let them worship (or not) as they will.
(2)
(0)
SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury
Having "In God We Trust" on our currency does not make us a Christian nation.
(2)
(0)
Theoretically, I'd agree. As long as one person's exercising of their religion doesn't impact the constitutional rights of others, I don't see a problem with dismantling all such laws. In reality, that has not been the case. The separation of church and state presents society with a Catch-22, simply due to human nature. Throughout our history, religion has been used as a means to justify denying people their basic freedom (slavery), their civil rights (voting rights, equal access to education, etc.), their privacy (abortion rights), their liberty (LGBT), their freedom of commerce (blue laws), etc. By strictly adhering to the Constitution (making no such law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), the Federal Government is setting the conditions for one person to use their religion as a tool to adversely impact the constitutional rights of another, either intentionally or unintentionally. So, that's where the Founding Fathers' principles start to fall apart...when we move from the theoretical world into the world of reality. Someone is going to have their rights stepped on by another. I'm not sure our society can ever disentangle this Catch-22 without eventually amending the Constitution.
(5)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
LTC To me it looks like we are on a path to a situation where there is no winners. Replace religion with aomething else, almost any thing. If one person complains about something it will be changed, no matter how many approve of it or want it. What then happens to the Constitutional rights of the other people. Take the bathroom issue. The rights of the tranngender overrides the rights of the ones that want privacy. But i guess privacy isn't a Constitutional right or is it. Where is the stopping point? When everyone can feel free to do as they please without answering for it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google