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.
There simply isn't a right to "freedom from religion". I am fascinated by this you must reveal you education.[/quote]
If you are free to follow your own religious beliefs, then it is LOGICAL that you are protected from having others beliefs imposed on you. That logic has been backed up repeatedly by SCOTUS. It's a basic, simple, concept. If you're looking for the specific term "freedom from religion" I don't know if you'll find it or not. It's one of those things where you actually have to understand what you're reading, and follow logic. That's how SCOTUS makes their arguments (that's how attorneys argue cases as well--logic and law), and why you're getting comments from other posters here about your ability to understand basic concepts.
I just saw this. Next time you might want to google before you make broad reaching statements--here's a link to a number of cases. It took seconds to find them. The most obvious issues addressing "freedom from religion" include school prayer--that it subjects students to others religious beliefs, and that it creates a discriminatory environment if the pray is conducted but the student can opt out. If that isn't "Freedom from Religion" I don't know what is...
I never doubted freedom of religion, it is actually my contention that there is freedom of religion, it is the other poster who believes in the mythical "freedom FROM religion"
What you are referencing is the establishment of religion, the government cannot establish a religion. It cannot prohibit my free excercise religion. It can't sheild you from my religious symbols etc.
I never said there was a SCOTUS decision. Are you telling me that I have to practice a religion in this country? Which SCOTUS decision dictated that?
I never said you had to practice religion, simply you can't be free from it. i.e. my expression of religion symbols for example. Or if I walk down the street saying the "Our father". You simply can't be free from encountering religous expression.
the real question is why the 'samesex' people keep pushing for the redefining of marriage...seems to be about greed. because all they talk about is the 'benefits of marriage' and not that they dont need a piece of paper giving them permission form the government to love somebody
Well, if it's legal, then they can get a divorce and ask for financial support.
I know it's NOT for healthcare because that's already allowed without the legal piece of paper and any other legal matter they can sign papers as joint investors.
There simply isn't a right to "freedom from religion". I am fascinated by this you must reveal you education.
If you are free to follow your own religious beliefs, then it is LOGICAL that you are protected from having others beliefs imposed on you. That logic has been backed up repeatedly by SCOTUS. It's a basic, simple, concept. If you're looking for the specific term "freedom from religion" I don't know if you'll find it or not. It's one of those things where you actually have to understand what you're reading, and follow logic. That's how SCOTUS makes their arguments (that's how attorneys argue cases as well--logic and law), and why you're getting comments from other posters here about your ability to understand basic concepts.[/quote]
LOL, the SCOTUS decisions are based on the establishment clause, all dealing with publicly financed religious expression. The SCOTUS cannot stop private religious expression religous symbols placed in my yard, Muslim call to prayer etc.
You won't find freedom FROM religion because no such right exists. You cannot compell me not to express my religous beliefs.
I never said you had to practice religion, simply you can't be free from it. i.e. my expression of religion symbols for example. Or if I walk down the street saying the "Our father". You simply can't be free from encountering religous expression.
If you're walking down the street, you're not forcing others to listen to you or participate on government property or in government programs, and they're not in a discriminatory situation if they walk away. You're going in circles here.
The gay marriage advocates are trying to use equal protection to say that they should be allowed to marry people of the same sex. Equal protection guarantees equal rights to a protected class. So what makes a protected class? It is something that individual cannot change about themselves (i.e. race, age, disability, gender). Religion is protected specifically in other areas of the Constitution.
Being gay is thought as a choice by many people and not a biological feature. There are some that say people are born gay but that's just a theory; it has not been proven.
So, quite simply, gays are not guaranteed protection under equal protection because they are not a protected class. This isn't really an argument about marriage; it's about making gays a protected class. They just do not meet the criteria. By the way, that's why people get upset when you compare gays to the civil rights movement and equal protection for minorities (e.g. race; which is clearly something someone does not have a choice about).
If you're walking down the street, you're not forcing others to listen to you or participate on government property or in government programs, and they're not in a discriminatory situation if they walk away. You're going in circles here.
It is you who are going in circles. There are 2 basic priciples in the constitution referencing religion. One is the government can't establish a religion, two is the government can't interfere in the free exercise of religion. There isn't stated or implied freedom from religion. You seem to think freedom from religion means no one can force you to practice a religion. It doesn't, that is covered in the establishment clause. The only institution that can compell you to do anything is the state, and the establishment clause prevents that. There is no freedom from religion.
By the way take a quarter from your pocket, look at it see "In God we trust"? Try walking away from us currency.
It is you who are going in circles. There are 2 basic priciples in the constitution referencing religion. One is the government can't establish a religion, two is the government can't interfere in the free exercise of religion. There isn't stated or implied freedom from religion. You seem to think freedom from religion means no on can force you to practice a religion. It doesn't, that is covered in the establishment clause. The only institution that can compell you to do anything is the state, and the establishment clause prevents that. There is no freedom from religion.
So your whole premise is that the SCOTUS case law that I referred to on school prayer, etc. (did you read it?) was unconstitutional, right? Your argument is that they didn't have the right under the constitution to make those decisions? That clarifies lots for me about where you're coming from.
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.
