Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any such law would be unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment (separation of church and state).
That would be incorrect. from my personal perspective, I believe I realise your mistake. The First Amendment simply says that Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion. Traditionally, our Country has chosen to minimalize religious persecution. This however in no way stops the federal powers from enforcing the laws. If a law is passed that says that non-private/gov-relient mosques cannot force women to attend separate venues without their consent, then the federal and state powers would be within their full means to empower muslim women. The first amendment is not about religious freedom, its about protecting Congress from religious establishments and protecting the People from having their religion made illegal by name or idea. without the anti-establishment clause, Congress would be distortfully able to hurt the people severly through theocratic orders. the anti-establishment clause is not meant to protect the religious dogmas of the various established religions, its about protecting a supposedly Secular Congress.
Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
traditionally, our Courts have deamed that laws can be unfortunate for established religions with clear dogmas, however "the free excercise" of religion does not excuse illegal behavior. nor do religious dogmas allow us to tell what should and shouldn't be illegal. I'm sure to all courts in this Nation, any religion can be freely excercised even if some of it's physical aspects are Illegal because religion has to do with a person on a mental level, where nothing can be made illegal; allowing all established religions to be freely followed even if some of their less pertenent aspects are made illegal.
However, with our history of segregated churces and low enforcement of unity, the hypocracy might be blatant. though a good excuse might be that we are a new generation.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-12-2011 at 10:12 AM..
"We should start with mosques in the U.S., and the government should help promote democracy in places of worship by denying non-profit tax-exempt status — called 501(c)3 designation — to places of worship that practice gender inequity"
This would could result in loss of tax exemption for Orthodox synagogues. It could I suppose be invoked against ANY denomination that does not ordain women - which would include the Roman Catholic and most Eastern Orthodox churches. Whoever wrote this was not thinking through the implications.
Why can't muslims who want gender equality just start their own mosque?
That would be incorrect. from my personal perspective, I believe I realise your mistake. The First Amendment simply says that Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion...
You're incorrect. First Amendment would be violated if the government chooses to regulate any religious practice, as would be the case here. A religion based law (for or against) is a big no.
Ahh the good ol Christian comparison...always tried and true when Islam is brought up by anybody. This thread is about Islamic Mosques in the US, not Christian anything, or Hindu, Buddist, or??? for that matter. If you want to discuss Christianity or any other religion for that matter, please start a thread of your own and I will look it over to see if I want to post on it, thanks a bunch...and no my friend cannot attend a mosque in Iran(he would be killed, as others like him have been)
Well i'm sorry you are incapaple of understanding that govt action against mosques would surely lead next govt action against churches....both are protected by the same legal arguments....and both can be destroyed by the same arguments.
The article cited requested govt intervention in private religious matters,and you support it in the case of a religion you don't like,while seeming oblivious to the implications for churches you may like.If the govt can compel a religion to a certain seating arrangement it can certainly compel them to do a host of other things contrary to their faith.
Members are free to protest church policies they object to or find another religion or skip religion altogether....the govt should stay out of it.If muslim women want to boycott their mosque,or stage a protest in front of the place its ok with me...i'm not muslim and don't care....none of my business.When the govt gets involved...it becomes my business.
You have just confirmed that most religions are also patriarchal and value women less than men...Good that you pointed this out.
Gotta keep 'em barefoot and pregnant as the saying goes, right?
I don't think I revealed any big secret but you paint with a pretty broad brush,a much broader one than I do.Many religions are inarguably patriarchal,but a good many are not.I wouldn't agree that 'most' religions value women less then men,but I can see where people could feel that was true.If a woman feels that her church doesn't value her equally then she should leave,but it is up to the individual what determines how 'value' is defined.
As to your last point...I kind of like women barefoot,a lot of them seem to like being barefoot too....but I sure don't want to keep one pregnant,two kids is plenty for me!
You're incorrect. First Amendment would be violated if the government chooses to regulate any religious practice, as would be the case here. A religion based law (for or against) is a big no.
religious practices can be anything, even illegal activities...I have heard that the courts decided that in matters where religious practices are illegal, the states may do as they see fit, as long as there is a reason other than needless religious persecution. the word "practice" is not included in the first amendment for a very obvious reason, that being that depending on the circumstances, any which practice could be hazardous to the general wellbeing of the people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
