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.
Cast not thy pearls upon swine. You are not looking for an answer. You just want a ridiculous conversation. I am not going there. Use your brain.
I believe you are one of those people who would really benefit from taking a long, hard look in the mirror.
Perhaps you ought to critically think about just what kind of person you are (you are not casting yourself in a positive light but rather as a conceited, arrogant, undereducated, and over-opinionated individual), but also how generations of Constitutional scholars have come to a conclusion that complete contradicts yours.
Alas, I have a feeling that you won't - and that's certainly your prerogative. Just try to understand that you don't know what you don't know - even though you make it quite clear to others. Honest introspection is quite difficult for most.
If you equate "pearls" with "knowledge," then somebody has certainly heeded your advice in your presence.
Freedom from encountering something is not the same as freedom from being compelled to participate. And that's a distinction that has to be made clear. When someone is saying that they don't want school authorities to lead students in prayer, that doesn't mean that they want students to be prevented from praying. They want students to be free to refuse to participate, and when authorities lead people, that freedom to refuse to participate is put at risk, not just by the authorities making prayer compulsory, but by the social pressure that demands conformity adding to the compulsory nature of the authorities' demand. By allowing children to pray on their own initiative, rather than the initiative of teachers or other school authorities, you remove the compulsory aspect of the practice. How some find that offensive, I do not know. But true faith has no element of compulsion related to it. True faith is purely individual, purely voluntary, it is pure in its application.
I disagree, the focus should be on their ability to refuse and that by doing such they are not penalized for doing so. What has been done is the opposite, it has become common place that by encountering such is a violation and "infringes" on the freedom of the individual.
Social "pressure" is BS. Remember, we are talking about not having a choice and the fact that someone may "feel" pressured is not an elimination of choice, it is an excuse and entirely a subjective means to demand intolerance to a given issue.
The result is a position where "freedom" is dictated because the freedom to speak, to make ones mind known can be "rationalized" to an infringement of another due to various "social" excuses.
It doesn't matter how you "feel", or what the the majority of others may "feel" toward you. All that matters is that you are free to make your choice and not have your liberty infringed for doing so.
That is not what is done in our society today. Religious freedom is persecuted daily under the guise that it is protecting all.
What's being abused the the idea of "religion" in the first place. It's not just being able to believe now...it's being able to act and inflict upon the rest of society whatever crazy idea pops into someones head under the umbrella of Religious Freedom. I don't personally put up with it in my own life (I've told people off and sent them packing) but as a country we have had a stuggle to wrap our laws around it.
Social "pressure" is BS. Remember, we are talking about not having a choice and the fact that someone may "feel" pressured is not an elimination of choice, it is an excuse and entirely a subjective means to demand intolerance to a given issue.
Okay. The next time they have a big soccer match in Iran, you stand up and proclaim your belief that Allah was a fraud, the only true god is the Christian god, and that Jesus, his son, is equally god.
Then come back and tell us all about social pressure.
What's being abused the the idea of "religion" in the first place. It's not just being able to believe now...it's being able to act and inflict upon the rest of society whatever crazy idea pops into someones head under the umbrella of Religious Freedom. I don't personally put up with it in my own life (I've told people off and sent them packing) but as a country we have had a stuggle to wrap our laws around it.
If you are free to disagree, free to remove yourself form the display, then there is no infringement. That is the issue. The problem is, some people think that being free means they are free to not encounter, to not ever have to make such a choice. Freedom is not about never having a choice, it is about being able to make a choice. Those who advocate this form of infringement want choice removed. They don't want to have to experience it.
Okay. The next time they have a big soccer match in Iran, you stand up and proclaim your belief that Allah was a fraud, the only true god is the Christian god, and that Jesus, his son, is equally god.
Then come back and tell us all about social pressure.
What is the point in that response? That some people are intolerant? So in order to make your point, you have to go to the extreme and place the scenario in a situation where objection to the issue would result in death?
Don't you think that a rather stupid argument?
What are you suggesting? That if you don't place your foot on the throat of the people, direct them, choose for them, that they will all act like a bunch of 3rd world country hooligans and kill people at random?
What you suggest creates the very thing you claim you are avoiding.
If you are free to disagree, free to remove yourself form the display, then there is no infringement. That is the issue. The problem is, some people think that being free means they are free to not encounter, to not ever have to make such a choice. Freedom is not about never having a choice, it is about being able to make a choice. Those who advocate this form of infringement want choice removed. They don't want to have to experience it.
That is not freedom, that is oppression.
In some cases this should be true. The "choice" isn't something everyone should have to face during the course of their day to day lives forever and whenever someone else decides to inflict it upon them. THAT is their freedom and their choce and it should be respected too. It's the driving force in keeping religion out of public places with captive audiences who are trying to go about their non-religious business. We have allowed for all religions to practice, we do not have to allow for all religions to take over any time or place they desire with a shug of "you don't have to look" or "you can leave if you don't like it".
I shouldn't have to remove myself from anyplace but church or an expected religious exercise. This is my world too.
I disagree, the focus should be on their ability to refuse and that by doing such they are not penalized for doing so. What has been done is the opposite, it has become common place that by encountering such is a violation and "infringes" on the freedom of the individual.
Social "pressure" is BS. Remember, we are talking about not having a choice and the fact that someone may "feel" pressured is not an elimination of choice, it is an excuse and entirely a subjective means to demand intolerance to a given issue.
The result is a position where "freedom" is dictated because the freedom to speak, to make ones mind known can be "rationalized" to an infringement of another due to various "social" excuses.
It doesn't matter how you "feel", or what the the majority of others may "feel" toward you. All that matters is that you are free to make your choice and not have your liberty infringed for doing so.
That is not what is done in our society today. Religious freedom is persecuted daily under the guise that it is protecting all.
You are not making sense (and that's unusual for you). If the focus should be on the ability to refuse, without penalty, then the laws against school authorities LEADING prayer, are doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. Allowing those who want to pray, to pray, and allowing those who don't to not pray.
Social pressure is not BS. Especially in a school setting. When students buy clothes, notebooks, computers, and so on, all in an effort to conform, being marked out as different can do a lot of harm to an individual.
Religious freedom isn't persecuted daily under the guise that it is protecting all. Your religious freedom to compel others to participate in your religious practices is what is disallowed. Your religion is not allowed to dominate all others, even if it is the predominant religion. While that may not make sense to you, because your religion is the predominant one, it makes sense if you understand that the Bill of Rights, our main protection against persecution by anyone, is meant to protect individuals and their freedom, not to protect the majority. The majority has no need of special protection, it is the majority. It is the individuals who disagree with the majority that have a need for increased protection. Because society has a way of reflecting the majority, and of suppressing the minority. And in a truly free society, the minority should not, must not be suppressed.
In some cases this is true. The choice isn't something everyone should have to face during the course of their day to day lives. THAT is their freedom and their choce and it should be respected too.
Who are you to determine such and at what costs of liberty? You are saying people should be protected from "encountering" something and the only way to achieve such is to dictate to people how they can live and function.
There is no logic or reason to demand that you can never "encounter" such. It is an unobtainable goal in a society that respects liberty.
All you can do is protect the liberty of people to choose. That choice means they are always able to remove themselves from the things that offend them. What you are suggesting is oppressing an entire society to various beliefs that think they should never encounter something. That is, you are infringing on others under the position that "some" may be offended. You become the very thing that defies all concepts of liberty and freedom.
where does this end? Who then decides what is reasonable in encounter, what is offensive and what should not be encountered? Do you not realize that you just explained a society to where a minority ruling power dictates over the populace their freedoms?
What if I wish not to encounter bratty children who touch my food in restaurants because their parents are irresponsible fools? What of that? Are you now going to dictate that children can not be present in society to avoid such or will you dictate to me that my objection of encountering such is unreasonable? So, in essence you are now my master, you dictate my liberty, my freedom and I live to serve at your desecration?
Under your description, either I will be catered to or I will be dismissed. So, there is no consistency in your society, only what the powers dictate.
At least, with what I explained, EVERYONE is protected because their freedom to choose allows themselves to make the choice to remove themselves when they encounter such and make choices that will reduce the chance of encountering such.
In your society, I am a peasant, a slave to the discretion of my ruling powers.
Who are you to determine such and at what costs of liberty? You are saying people should be protected from "encountering" something and the only way to achieve such is to dictate to people how they can live and function.
There is no logic or reason to demand that you can never "encounter" such. It is an unobtainable goal in a society that respects liberty.
All you can do is protect the liberty of people to choose. That choice means they are always able to remove themselves from the things things that offend them. What you are suggesting is oppressing an entire society to various beliefs that think they should never encounter something. That is, you are infringing on others under the position that "some" may be offended. You become the very thing that defies all concepts of liberty and freedom.
I am me. I don't have to be anyone special to make this choice and you have to respect that just as I respect the right for you to practice your religion... without telling me to remove myself from a place I'm at doing other things if I don't like it.
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.
