Considering that the amendment I propose makes no effort to promote one religion over another, I fail to see your point. This amendment would not give any religion any advantage over any other religion. What the amendment would do is insure that nobody would have to give up any right (commerce, politics, etcetera) for the sake of exercising their right to freedom of religion.
Religious liberty
- Thread starter flaja
- Start date
Considering that the amendment I propose makes no effort to promote one religion over another, I fail to see your point. This amendment would not give any religion any advantage over any other religion. What the amendment would do is insure that nobody would have to give up any right (commerce, politics, etcetera) for the sake of exercising their right to freedom of religion.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
My documentation is letters and writings of Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin in which they clearly expressed their disdain for organized religion.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Yes they do pay taxes. But the tax dollars do not come exclusively from christians. They also come from atheists, agnostics, pagans, hindus, buddhists, and others.
Either it represents all religions or it does not use tax dollars at all. This is what the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
If we are going to ammend the US Constitution you would need to offer serious proof that anyone is sacrificing their rights by exercising their religion.
What rights (commerce, politics, ect) is someone giving up in order to practice their religion?
I was not critiquing your proposed ammendment. I was answering your post concerning Deists in the founding fathers.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So because your religion calls for you to preach in the streets you claim the US Constitution needs to be changed?
I think I will start a new religion that requires for me to be totally nude every afternoon at sunset. Does this mean that any laws requiring that I be clothed should be thrown out?
Care to document any of these letters? And why don't you explain why Washington was a vestryman for his local Episcopalian Church.
uscitizen
Villified User
Damned illuminati!
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Care to explain why Washington got up and left church before receiving communion?
Concerning Washington:
"Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175] "
"Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15] "
""Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792"
From http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#washington
Concerning Jefferson:
""In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814"
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
- "Notes on Virginia"
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
- to Carey, 1816
From http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#Jefferson
Concerning Franklin:
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
- "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
.
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac
From http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#franklin
I don’t accept that all religions are treated equally in the public sphere- you seldom (if ever?) hear about lawsuits where adherents of non-Christian religions have to go to court to gain access to public places and politics. If you can provide documentation to the contrary, do so. I’d like to know when and where a school board or a government entity has been sued because they have allowed or wish to allow non-Christians to participate in public life (prayer, religions displays, school assemblies etcetera)- when is the last time a Muslim or a Hindu had to go to court to get the OK to pray at a public school graduation or put a religious symbol on public property?
But this is my entire point. While Christians are more likely to be discriminated against because of religion, the amendment I propose would spell out what can be done in the public arena in the name of religion. All religions would have greater ability to exist in the public setting without having to take court action to do so.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
In a previous post you said "What the amendment would do is insure that nobody would have to give up any right (commerce, politics, etcetera) for the sake of exercising their right to freedom of religion."
Please detail what rights (commercial, political, or otherwise) people are forced to give up in order to practice their religion.
Please detail what rights (commercial, political, or otherwise) people are forced to give up in order to practice their religion.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I have not seen lawsuits because I have not seen other religions presented on public property, by government entities, and to the exclusion of other religions.
When Judge Roy Moore snuck the monument into the Alabama Supreme Courthouse lobby, he did not allow any other display to be placed there with it.
When there were prayers in schools, at high school football games and other functions, they were not hindu prayers or muslim prayers. They were exclusively christian prayers.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So far you have only offered what we do not see from other religions, not any real measure of discrimination against christians.
The anti-discrimination laws do not qualify and neither do single instances of cease-and-desist orders that were never enforced then rescinded then apologized for.
The anti-discrimination laws do not qualify and neither do single instances of cease-and-desist orders that were never enforced then rescinded then apologized for.
In McColloch v. Maryland the Supreme Court ruled that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If we accept that churches, or any other religious organizations, can be subject to taxes, then you open the possibility that churches/religious organizations can be shut down by taxation- a 100% or even a 50-99% income tax could easily put a church/religious organization out of business. Therefore the income and property of churches/religious organizations should not be taxed, and historically they have not been taxed. But in the 1950s Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson was subject to complaints by various churches in Texas. So Johnson sponsored an amendment to a law the Senate was considering whereby any church that engaged in political activity or criticized a government official would forfeit their tax exempt status. But assembly and petitioning the government for redress of grievances are both 1st Amendment rights. Under current law a church/religious organization cannot practice religion without forfeiting their right to assemble and petition.
Also, federal anti-discrimination laws mean that people of faith cannot refuse to hire people whose behavior violates the tenets of the employer’s religion. The law mandates that people accept behavior that their religion condemns, thus the law denies people the free exercise of their religion.
If you pose a danger to society by your behavior, then yes. Notice how the amendment I propose gives rights only to the extent that they are exercised in a peaceable manner. Under current law you cannot pose a danger to anyone in the name of exercising your religion. The amendment I propose would not change this.
If the Founding Fathers meant to give us freedom from religion, i.e., religion was to be kept out of public/government life explain why:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yo...goneDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Prior to the Revolution every colony barred Jews from holding public office while at the same time most colonies made Jews pay taxes to support the colonies’ established churches.
After the Revolution the states were not bound by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution until the middle of the 20th century (when the Supreme Court struck down taxpayer supported churches). Some states in New England used tax money to support the Christian religion until the 19th century. Jews could not vote or hold public office in Connecticut until 1818, Rhode Island until 1842 or North Carolina until 1868 because these states had legal provisions that gave preferential treatment to Christians in some form or another. Some states imposed restrictions on legal testimony from Jews and some state courts upheld legal discrimination against Jews on the grounds that Christianity was part of the common law.
As recently as 1961 the Supreme Court upheld state blue laws that required Jews to close their businesses on the Christian Sabbath saying that blue laws did not violate the establishment or the free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment.
Also, at one point a Jew could not legally spend the night in the state of Maryland and you had to accept the divinity of Jesus Christ to hold any kind of public office in Maryland (even so much as a notary public) until the U.S. Supreme Court struck the restriction as unconstitutional (sometime in the 1960s, I think).
Anyone who believes that the 1st Amendment was meant to bar Christians from actively participating in society in general, or government in particular, is either ignorant of history or just a fool.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yo...goneDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Prior to the Revolution every colony barred Jews from holding public office while at the same time most colonies made Jews pay taxes to support the colonies’ established churches.
After the Revolution the states were not bound by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution until the middle of the 20th century (when the Supreme Court struck down taxpayer supported churches). Some states in New England used tax money to support the Christian religion until the 19th century. Jews could not vote or hold public office in Connecticut until 1818, Rhode Island until 1842 or North Carolina until 1868 because these states had legal provisions that gave preferential treatment to Christians in some form or another. Some states imposed restrictions on legal testimony from Jews and some state courts upheld legal discrimination against Jews on the grounds that Christianity was part of the common law.
As recently as 1961 the Supreme Court upheld state blue laws that required Jews to close their businesses on the Christian Sabbath saying that blue laws did not violate the establishment or the free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment.
Also, at one point a Jew could not legally spend the night in the state of Maryland and you had to accept the divinity of Jesus Christ to hold any kind of public office in Maryland (even so much as a notary public) until the U.S. Supreme Court struck the restriction as unconstitutional (sometime in the 1960s, I think).
Anyone who believes that the 1st Amendment was meant to bar Christians from actively participating in society in general, or government in particular, is either ignorant of history or just a fool.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The taxation of churches would apply to all churches regardless of the religion they represent. The fact that many churches hold vast amounts of property and financial wealth in a tax free status despite the fact that they are used for recreation, personal gain, and even to just hide it from taxation.
The federal anti-discrimination laws to not deny anyone the right to free exercise of their religion. The fact that you work at a retail establishment with a gay man or a pagan woman does not stop you from being a christian. Your faith may condemn their lifestyle or their beliefs. But you are still free to believe, pray, and read the bible as much as the employer allows. The fact that you are not allowed to refuse employment to those your faith condemns only means that your business cannot be used to punish sinners. But that is supposed to be the exclusive priviledge of God anyway.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
And neither would my new religion's requirement to worship in the nude at sunset.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
This does not explain anything about the 1st ammendment. It explains the antidiscrimination laws quite thoroughly.
That other religions were freely discriminated against is not proof that the US Constitution did not forbid it. It is only proof that the laws were not enforced. Just as laws against sodomy were not enforced against straight couples, and rarely against lesbians, but almost always only against gay men.
I have not said that the 1st Amendment was supposed to bar christians from participating in government. I did not make the claim that it should bar anyone from participating in government. In 234 years we have had only christian presidents.
I have also not said that the 1st Amendment was meant to stop only christians from using government facilities for their religious ceremonies. I believe it should bar all religions from using government (or taxpayer sponsered) facilities for their religious ceremonies.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21597
The University of Michigan, Dearborn, is planning to use student fees to fund footbaths for Muslim students that have to have them for their 5 times a day prayer rituals. Where’s the lawsuit over separation of church and state? The ACLU has concluded that these Muslim footbaths are secular footbaths.
Furthermore, “The Byron Union school district in California has decided that its public schools should set aside days and assignments where all students choose a Muslim name, recite passages from the Koran, and periodically give up certain comforts as ‘forms of fasting’ that correspond to Ramadan.” Again the ACLU has not complained.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-168748587.html
A San Diego school plans to accommodate the Islamic Faith with prayer breaks. Where’s the separation of church and state? Where are the lawsuits?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Koran's+display+at+police+department+raises+concerns-a0112132150
A Queens New York police station has put a copy of the Koran on display to commemorate the Islamic holiday of Ramadan. As near as I can tell there has been no lawsuit.
Define discrimination. What exactly, in your view, constitutes religious discrimination? You cannot say that I have not been discriminated against due to my religion without telling me what my religion is. What gives you such authority? I have not told you how to practice your religion and you can go to Hell if you think you have a right to tell me how to practice mine.