Freedom of Religion and free speech

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

We can call it what we want. People can continue to think what they want and vote the way they think. As long as people THINK that they arent infringing on a persons actual rights, they can continue to vote the way that they want. Until the law is changed and has been reviewed, A persons "rights" are what the government says that they are. If a person has a "right" to not get married, or to be owned by another person, or to abstain from sex until a state approved legal marriage, (yes I know what I just said) then they cancontinue to do it. Until laws change and people have to decide that they need changing to do so, people can operate however they want, whether they are infringing on what I think is someone's right isn't important until enough of someone in the government decides that it is... Is that how it should be? eh I don't know but that's how it is, we can only hope that people understand the point...

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

...A persons "rights" are what the government says that they are.

Actually, in the U.S., people have the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness, which covers pretty much everything. Everybody has those rights, UNTIL somebody takes them away. It isn't that the government "gives" rights. The government either protects them, or takes them away (In other words, nothing is illegal until there is a specific law against it).

...whether they are infringing on what I think is someone's right isn't important until enough of someone in the government decides that it is... Is that how it should be? eh I don't know but that's how it is, we can only hope that people understand the point...

The government doesn't decide it. The people decide it. The people do it by bringing things to the nation's attention, discussing it in public, arguing, advertising, and voting. As long as people remain confused about what the government does or does not do (i.e.: grant rights), they may expect the government to do for them what they should really be causing to happen themselves. "Homesexual" was not removed from the DVSM because the government wanted it out. It came out because concerned people demanded it come out.

[Ophidia]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

Yeah, I figured that was what you meant - I just wanted to make sure and clarify it. I've noticed that there are a lot of people who do not quite seem to understand that (at least in the U.S.) the separation of church and state only runs one way - against government messing with religion, but not against religion's messing with government.

Yes, if a governmental official is a religious person, their religion may influence their choices and direction, but they can't get up there & force everyone into a religious practice (unless they can effectively persuade Congress). Yes, most of the laws we practice have a basis in common morality or ethics, which are linked to religious practice - but it's also reflective of the Code of Hammurabi and Greco-Roman philosophy. The separation of church and state, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson's letter that coined the phrase, is meant to avoid problems like insane Caesars and Pharoahs - and nutty Kings of England.

[anunitu]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

it hasn't been all that long ago that we did indeed have religious laws on the books,in fact a few are still out there. One that comes to mind are "Blue" laws or no work or business on Sunday. The prohibition laws were mainly pushed by religious groups about "The Devils brew",and many other laws have a basis with religion. There is also some laws that were based on racism,in Texas anti "Weed" laws were used against Hispanics to get them out of Texas. So,law is relative sometimes to area or large groups with an agenda. Mainly laws should protect,but not control people over much. There are outright stupid laws,and then there are some that are almost criminal in the way that they are used. The "Jim Crow" laws fit into that category.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

No work on Sunday can also be a social thing though. It's still practiced here, for absolutely no religious reason. People just want to have at least one day off a week where they can spend time with their spouses and families. I hated it when I moved here, but it's wonderful once you accept that you can't go to the store that day.

[Caelia]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

The separation of church and state, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson's letter that coined the phrase, is meant to avoid problems like insane Caesars and Pharoahs - and nutty Kings of England.

Don't forget about the priests in, if I recall, the Temple of Karnak who gained political power as well. That went over like a lead balloon too.

[Ronalld]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

Well friends I just too think that everyone has the right to believe in the religion as according to their choice and can speak anything for their shake but despite of all these issues these should not be used for cause of religion disputes and inhuman behavior.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

The government doesn't decide it. The people decide it. The people do it by bringing things to the nation's attention, discussing it in public, arguing, advertising, and voting.

Which only works if someone ( who actually has some manner of power to do something.) acts on these things. As long as people do things like decide not to vote because they don't like anyone, nothing changes. People who influence government (and government processes) basically get to decide who has rights and who doesn't. Its fine and dandy to say all people have a right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, but if you aren't considered "people" yet, it does you no good.
Commercials, arguments, discussions, and other things have become so rampant no one actually hears the substance of them anymore. Whole speeches have been broken down into one "sound byte" and decisions are made solely on snippets of nothing. Education among large and dense populations in this country has become a joke, and until hings can be done intelligently, yes the government (i.e. people in it) are going to make decisions and lead people around by the nose. Also just to be clear, referendums, the judicial process, and legislature all count as part of the government. I know you know that and I am not trying to insult you, just trying to clarify my own thought process as I know I talk in circles sometimes. I understand technically people vote in their own representative government officials, but ultimately it is those people who make laws, (and determine what qualifies as "people" and "liberty.")

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

Which only works if someone ( who actually has some manner of power to do something.) acts on these things. As long as people do things like decide not to vote because they don't like anyone, nothing changes. People who influence government (and government processes) basically get to decide who has rights and who doesn't. Its fine and dandy to say all people have a right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, but if you aren't considered "people" yet, it does you no good.
Commercials, arguments, discussions, and other things have become so rampant no one actually hears the substance of them anymore. Whole speeches have been broken down into one "sound byte" and decisions are made solely on snippets of nothing. Education among large and dense populations in this country has become a joke, and until hings can be done intelligently, yes the government (i.e. people in it) are going to make decisions and lead people around by the nose. Also just to be clear, referendums, the judicial process, and legislature all count as part of the government. I know you know that and I am not trying to insult you, just trying to clarify my own thought process as I know I talk in circles sometimes. I understand technically people vote in their own representative government officials, but ultimately it is those people who make laws, (and determine what qualifies as "people" and "liberty.")

Sure. The power is only in the hands of the people IF they chose to use it. If they don't, IMHO, they deserve what they get.

Expecting the government to do anything FOR the people, without being poked by the big stick of public opinion, is naive.

Really - sooner or later everybody has to learn to stand on their own feet.

P.S. I don't at all feel insulted when people disagree with me. If at least some people don't, I figure that I'm doing something wrong...

[nbdy]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

No work on Sunday can also be a social thing though. It's still practiced here, for absolutely no religious reason. People just want to have at least one day off a week where they can spend time with their spouses and families. I hated it when I moved here, but it's wonderful once you accept that you can't go to the store that day.

I noted many years ago that we don't really have any "true holidays" in the U.S. I am old enough to remember when we did, and it is quite lovely to KNOW that everyone has the day off. At least our national holidays should be true holidays, they are not affiliated with any religion.

[FantasyWitch]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

(I haven't read through the whole thread so forgive me if my point has been made!)

Secular governments are the way forward. Religion should not be given any say in policies over multi-cultural, multi-religious countries. It is illogical and encourages a system that allows the greater number of people to ground down the minority. Religion is to subjective to be given that sort of authority.

End.


Ps, Hi guys x

[demon]

Re: Freedom of Religion and free speech

[...] Does ANY religious body have rights when their "Beliefs" are very negative towards certain groups,and amount to deeply negative prejudice that "might" be perceived as discrimination towards these groups. [...]

It depends on the country. In some places yes, but in some civilized places it might be restricted. My answer is that if the group is against civilized ideals, then no, but if they are, then yes, because if they are very civilized, they will also have to be against groups that are not.

I argue it is worse to kill someone than try to brainwash them. Scientology has been judged to have brainwashed people in at least one European country and was suppressed. However, the fundamental story of all Abrahamic religions is that of Abraham, who was told by a sadistic 'God' and/or imaginary voice in schizophrenia to kill his son. That idea fundamental to all Abrahamism is that if 'God' says kill, you must. So, if Scientology is suppressed, the question is whether Abrahamism should be suppressed even more. I suppose governments spend more time preventing activities that lead to more brainwashing than necessarily suppressing Scientology books, because they probably sound ludicrous and boring. Abrahamic books also do, but the problem is they perpetuate evil myths of deliberate ignorance, misogyny and hatred of nature & self, submission & obedience to the point of massacre and human sacrifice, and initiation of children without consent, involving mutilation, or baptism that for babies is scary. On one hand, I think copies of all books should be preserved, but in the case of cults like these, I am not sure. It was just the 1900s when Christians massacred people of other sects in the world wars, and Islamic terrorism is continuing basically constantly.

There are studies the higher the percentage of Muslims in a country, the more problems it has. At first there are demands, then insults & attacks, then restrictions on 'infidels,' then finally, war against other types of Muslims. So the question is also, if you cannot openly be non-Muslim in such countries and if fanatic Christians also want theocracy, why should such fanatics even have the right to be in, let alone speak in, countries based on the Classical Greek or derived ideas of reason & egalitarianism? Plato's idea of what to do with serious criminals was to exile them... maybe more civilized countries should let people in so they can see what it is like to be civilized, but the line has to be drawn at letting them influence and grow in the society of the world.