• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Constitution Really Say Freedom of Religion?

James972 said:
or Aristotle, the First Republican, who observed common natural behavior. If a bird, for example, tried to take over the nest of another bird rather than build his own nest there would be a fight. Hence, private property is a natural right widely exhibited in nature. Good govt merely understands nature and uses that understanding to help us minimize the fighting.
Click to expand...
You have no idea how utterly stupid that is. Do you realize that they also have observed dogs ****ing each other and thus not doubt hence we have the right to nail whoever we can when we get aroused, since that is so natural too. It is this type of uneducated thinking that allowed kings to claim divine rights too.
 
Ockham said:
It was answered, and re-answered and belief has nothing to do with reading Kant or the constitution. Sorry you're having trouble with that.
Click to expand...
No, you did not answer you made an uneducated excuse.
 
Moot said:
Why is your church preaching politics?
Click to expand...

They didn't realize that the first was intended to protect churches from government. I mean. You ask me...I get upset when my church tries to talk politics. All it does is produce division.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Freedom OF...not freedom FROM. You have a right to your beliefs. You don't have a right not to hear other's. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
Please explain it then.
Click to expand...

Some things are real, but invisible, like gravity.

I have said before that "the rights of man", the notions of rights, is a human construct, a human notion. They are intangible, but exist within our legal framework.

If they don't exist in your mind, they don't exist in your mind.

If they do exist in a legal system, they exist within that system. It's a game. You may choose not to play, but that doesn't mean that others must follow your lead. We cannot touch them and we cannot see them, but as long as there is a legal system in operation which recognizes them, they exist.
 
blackjack50 said:
Freedom OF...not freedom FROM. You have a right to your beliefs. You don't have a right not to hear other's. :)
Click to expand...
If you are required, forced, pressured into hearing others', then how is that FREE exercise? Right to pray must also mean right not to pray. Right to go to religious services means the right not to. That being said, if someone is preaching on the corner, that's his right. I do NOT have the right to prevent him, but I do have the right not to listen. And if he decides to preach on my front lawn? I absolutely have the right to kick him out.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Some things are real, but invisible, like gravity.
Click to expand...

Or like gods floating in the ether dispensing rights to mortal man as if we were costumed Halloween children filling our little sacks with the favors of the mighty.


If they do exist in a legal system, they exist within that system. It's a game. You may choose not to play, but that doesn't mean that others must follow your lead. We cannot touch them and we cannot see them, but as long as there is a legal system in operation which recognizes them, they exist.
Click to expand...

There is no game here. There is reality. And in reality what a person believes in their own mind does squat unless reality agrees with it and it is real. If the government of your country does not recognize what you believe is a right - you don't have it pure and simple.

And I can see my rights in action when they are exercised. They are real and can be proven to exist.
 
blackjack50 said:
Freedom OF...not freedom FROM. You have a right to your beliefs. You don't have a right not to hear other's. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think preaching to a 'captive audience' is unconstitutional...on the grounds that no one has a right to force to you listen to someone's else's beliefs.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/captive-audience-doctrine/


The First Amendment protects religion from government in the same vein that it protects government from religion.
 
haymarket said:
Or like gods floating in the ether dispensing rights to mortal man as if we were costumed Halloween children filling our little sacks with the favors of the mighty.




There is no game here. There is reality. And in reality what a person believes in their own mind does squat unless reality agrees with it and it is real. If the government of your country does not recognize what you believe is a right - you don't have it pure and simple.

And I can see my rights in action when they are exercised. They are real and can be proven to exist.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that gravity exists--I'm unable to see it or touch it.

Prove to me that our government governs in accordance with the founding document--I see no evidence of it, and much evidence contradicting the claim.

What do your rights look like, as you view them in action?
 
pinqy said:
If you are required, forced, pressured into hearing others', then how is that FREE exercise? Right to pray must also mean right not to pray. Right to go to religious services means the right not to. That being said, if someone is preaching on the corner, that's his right. I do NOT have the right to prevent him, but I do have the right not to listen. And if he decides to preach on my front lawn? I absolutely have the right to kick him out.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

You don't have any right to not hear someone's views. None. That isn't how it works. Someone on your land is trespassing. That is a different law. And illegal for them to be there. you have the freedom OF. Not freedom From. Be that "religion" or "lack thereof."

I can't force you to pray. You can't stop me from doing so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thoreau72 said:
Prove to me that gravity exists--I'm unable to see it or touch it.

Prove to me that our government governs in accordance with the founding document--I see no evidence of it, and much evidence contradicting the claim.

What do your rights look like, as you view them in action?
Click to expand...

You can see its effects every minute of every day and can run scientific experiments to prove it exists.

I can see my right to vote in action when I go to the polls and get a ballot and fill it out and see it counted in the totals. I can observe others exercising their right to vote. And so can you.
 
Moot said:
I think preaching to a 'captive audience' is unconstitutional...on the grounds that no one has a right to force to you listen to someone's else's beliefs.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/captive-audience-doctrine/


The First Amendment protects religion from government in the same vein that it protects government from religion.
Click to expand...

The problem is when the mob starts trying to define a "captive audience." I don't trust the mob. Do you? Case by case basis.

Also

I was speaking mainly about religion and politics in terms of politics being mentioned in church. I don't really care about "protecting government from religion." Not because it isn't important, but because someone has to be concerned about the other direction. And really...they have similar
End games in my view. Politics is the root of true evil if you ask me. Religion is ultimately corrupted by man trying to control other man...aka...politics.

I know. A little extreme. But also kind of true. How else could you corrupt a message like love your God and love one another?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
You can see its effects every minute of every day and can run scientific experiments to prove it exists.

I can see my right to vote in action when I go to the polls and get a ballot and fill it out and see it counted in the totals. I can observe others exercising their right to vote. And so can you.
Click to expand...

Yes, a sighted person can see the effects and results of gravity, but he cannot actually see it. He cannot describe its dimensions, he cannot describe its physical state--solid, liquid or gaseous, and he cannot describe its color.

The same applies to your right to vote. You cannot describe any physical qualities of that right because it is not a physical thing. It is a concept that everybody agrees exists. But it is just written on paper and agreed to by a group of humans.
 
blackjack50 said:
The problem is when the mob starts trying to define a "captive audience." I don't trust the mob. Do you? Case by case basis.

Also

I was speaking mainly about religion and politics in terms of politics being mentioned in church. I don't really care about "protecting government from religion." Not because it isn't important, but because someone has to be concerned about the other direction. And really...they have similar
End games in my view. Politics is the root of true evil if you ask me. Religion is ultimately corrupted by man trying to control other man...aka...politics.

I know. A little extreme. But also kind of true. How else could you corrupt a message like love your God and love one another?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The law has already defined a "captive audience" so the mob doesn't have to. Since public school is mandatory by law, the Captive Audience Doctrine protects school children from religious speech, too. Whereas going to church is voluntary so the doctrine doesn't apply to religion.

Politics and religion should always be kept separate, imo.
 
Moot said:
The law has already defined a "captive audience" so the mob doesn't have to. Since public school is mandatory by law, the Captive Audience Doctrine protects school children from religious speech, too. Whereas going to church is voluntary so the doctrine doesn't apply to religion
Click to expand...

Here is my issue. The "definition" is always subject to change. While it may be "defined," it is not concrete. My point is that I distrust government. And when people start restricting rights...my right to express myself here because other people "feel" they have no choice, or restrict your right to do "that" because other people "feel" this way? I don't trust that. And it has to be watched closely. Just because one does or does not have faith does not mean they are exempt from violating rights. I'm sure you know that. I'm just basically clarifying my point. Which leads too:

Politics and religion should always be kept separate, imo.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't trust politics. And I don't trust religion that involves itself in politics. When the paths cross (slavery and so on), that is one thing. When one goes out of the way looking for trouble? That is another.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
Here is my issue. The "definition" is always subject to change. While it may be "defined," it is not concrete. My point is that I distrust government. And when people start restricting rights...my right to express myself here because other people "feel" they have no choice, or restrict your right to do "that" because other people "feel" this way? I don't trust that. And it has to be watched closely. Just because one does or does not have faith does not mean they are exempt from violating rights. I'm sure you know that. I'm just basically clarifying my point. Which leads too:



Exactly. I don't trust politics. And I don't trust religion that involves itself in politics. When the paths cross (slavery and so on), that is one thing. When one goes out of the way looking for trouble? That is another.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't trust government either, but I'm real hard pressed to find ANY of my rights that have been restricted. So, I'm also hard pressed to to find a problem with the separation of church and states in this instance that you have a problem with.

"Vigilance is eternal", on that I agree, however when a clearly constitutionally permissive, (constitutionally demanded) issue comes up like this one: you hold up the garlic.... I don't get that.
 
jet57 said:
I don't trust government either, but I'm real hard pressed to find ANY of my rights that have been restricted. So, I'm also hard pressed to to find a problem with the separation of church and states in this instance that you have a problem with.

"Vigilance is eternal", on that I agree, however when a clearly constitutionally permissive, (constitutionally demanded) issue comes up like this one: you hold up the garlic.... I don't get that.
Click to expand...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your rights and mine as enumerated in the Fourth Amendment, for example, were sold down the river when our illustrious congresscritters passed the USA Patriot Act in the dead of night.

So too, our constitutional 'privilege' of Habeas Corpus was nullified by those same congresscritters in the several NDAA amendments going back several years.

Wake up and smell the napalm Jet57. It's really happening. And if you consider privacy to be a right, recall what was learned from Snowden, if you were paying attention when that happened.
 
jet57 said:
I don't trust government either, but I'm real hard pressed to find ANY of my rights that have been restricted. So, I'm also hard pressed to to find a problem with the separation of church and states in this instance that you have a problem with.

"Vigilance is eternal", on that I agree, however when a clearly constitutionally permissive, (constitutionally demanded) issue comes up like this one: you hold up the garlic.... I don't get that.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get your metaphor? Never heard it before.

But I'm along the lines that "ambition must be created to counteract ambition." It is in the best interests of the "people" to distrust government. Especially when it comes to arbitrary definitions. They can always change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
I don't quite get your metaphor? Never heard it before.

But I'm along the lines that "ambition must be created to counteract ambition." It is in the best interests of the "people" to distrust government. Especially when it comes to arbitrary definitions. They can always change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Vigilance is eternal" means that we always have to watch... In every case. I have no trouble watching government, I don't trust them either, never have. I DO however know the difference between what is and what is not constitutional, and religion IS NOT allowed in public schools because they are state and federally funded.
 
jet57 said:
religion IS NOT allowed in public schools because they are state and federally funded.
Click to expand...

the Constitution does allow religion in public schools, it does not allow the govt to establishment a religion or interfere with free practice of religion. Religion must be in schools since it is the source of morality on earth.
 
James972 said:
the Constitution does allow religion in public schools, it does not allow the govt to establishment a religion or interfere with free practice of religion. Religion must be in schools since it is the source of morality on earth.
Click to expand...

Aaaaand where does the constitution say that religion is allowed in public schools?
 
jet57 said:
Aaaaand where does the constitution say that religion is allowed in public schools?
Click to expand...

don't be silly, by not prohibiting it, it is in effect allowed. The Constitution is not a list of 1 billion things. Their concern was with establishing a religion or preventing free exercise, not whether there was religion in schools.
 
James972 said:
don't be silly, by not prohibiting it, it is in effect allowed. The Constitution is not a list of 1 billion things. Their concern was with establishing a religion or preventing free exercise, not whether there was religion in schools.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to know that drug use is allowed in public schools too.
 
jet57 said:
I'm glad to know that drug use is allowed in public schools too.
Click to expand...

its not but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess you missed Con Law when you were in Law School??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom