One freedom we frequently address in the U.S. is freedom of Religion. But that is not exactly what it states. The actual text is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
As a matter of fact, it is the very FIRST protection listed in the infamous Bill of Rights.
This week's blog is about looking at both of these elements.
ELEMENT ONE: The Establishment Clause.
While we do not have an "official state religion" most would agree we are a predominately Christian nation (thanks to our founders). And religion does permeate our society. We pledge allegiance to God and Country daily... swear on the bible in court... have mangers in town centers each holiday season... Easter, Good Friday, and Christmas are all national holidays...
So then what does establishment mean, We need to interpret in two ways. First, government should not favor one religion more than another. Second, money should not be involved. To deal with financial aspects, the Landmark court case Lemon v. Kurztman set up a rule for when government funds could go to religious institutions (primarily schools). Here is the test:
1. Have a secular purpose
2. Neither advance nor inhibit religion
3. Not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
Now let's look at part two:
Element Two: the Free Exercise Clause
Primarily this means you have the right to practice your religion. There are, of course, some limits. This cannot give you the ability to harm others or violate laws of drug use.
As such, the following religious practices are outlawed: polygamy, snake charming, use of peyote, etc.
The government also evaluates cult religions on the harm factor.
Please go to YouTube and search for "Jonestown Massacre". Watch a few clips. Think about other instances like Waco, Texas.
Now, what to write about:
1. Give a current example of government establishment of religion and react to it. Is it legal or not? If you find it in violation- why does it exist?
2. How far should Free Exercise go? What are appropriate limits? Where's the line?
As always, post your responses to BOTH questions here. And then discuss with each other this week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. As I said in class, one example would be the outlawing of gay marriage, actually. Because the only reason people have as to gays not getting married is that it's against their religion, it leads me to believe that the outlawing of gay marriage is in fact favoring a religion, which is making a "law [that] respect[s] the establishment of religion"
ReplyDeleteIs what legal? The passing of the law, or the law itself? Gay marriage is illegal in most states, and I'm all for saying that the law is unconstitutional in more ways than one.
Why does it exist? Good question. It's because we have people that are forcing their religious views down the throats of the American people by outlawing specific things when, in all reality, it's none of their blasted business.
2. I think about as far as it goes right now is solid. As said above, as long as you're not harming others, why does it matter? That's the only limit I believe should be enacted (assuming we have limits, anyway). Let them do their drugs, it doesn't bother me. If that's how they want to express their belief, go for it.
And I'm not quite sure what to say about the Jonestown Massacre. That guy was a nut, but so were all of the followers. They chose to harm themselves, not other people, so...It's their own thing. Of course, when he forced people to kill themselves (making them decide between poison injection or cyanide Kool-Aid), that's definitely crossing the line. He should've said "aight guys kool-aid or go home"
Also:
"This cannot give you the ability to harm others or violate laws of drug use."
So, uh...How come some denominations of Christianity let people under the age of 21 drink alcohol? Or does our government just favor Christianity? That's a rhetorical question.
If, say, Islam had children of age 12 or so drinking...I don't know, whiskey, do you think our government would be fine with that?
1. The “moment of silence” could be considered religious, seeing as it was originally intended for prayer, and stated so bluntly. It does not violate the 1st Amendment because there is no one forcing you to participate in it, at least for its religious intentions. While those religious could silently pray (whatever religion, to whatever deity they believe in), others who have no belief can reflect, or do nothing.
ReplyDelete2. The Freedom should allow religions to exercise their faiths out, as long as no one else is harmed in any way. There is a difference between a Jewish man wearing his yamaka and a snake charmer charming their poisonous snake. That isn’t saying that they should be fully prohibited from practicing their religion, but some practices put others and themselves in danger.
@ Cody- I’m gonna answer your question, even though it’s rhetorical. Most Christian churches no longer use actual wine in religious services, but rather grape juice. Those who still do use wine don’t have a full glass of wine, but a little cup smaller than a shot glass. It’s not enough to get a 12 year old drunk.
First off to answer Cody's quetion NO. LOL, We are a predominately Christian Country so the second another religion tries to give children alchohol of course we gonna freak out when did their religious head (a type of God for most religions or severl) say to drink wine in order to represent his blood before he died. ^_^ I had to so no one else would. Now that relious background is out of the way...
ReplyDelete{1} Well as MsDuquette already stated, I would say the pledge of alliegence is a break in the law. We swear our alligence to GOD (most of us to the GOD of Christianity) because it has been so natural and was so far left unchallenged until the new age of progressive people and society. It could be considered illegal as it shows our government and the states having a religion; or in my case I see it as a more moral belief. Most people complain because their religion doesn't beleive in GOD... well unless their atheist or another religion that doesn't believe in a supreme being/ god; other wise they should just imput their supreme being / god and swear their alligenceto that it would still work since their still pledgeing themselves to the country. So eh its all perception in my perception... LOL So I don't believe its illegal but it is old, since the words "under god" were put in during the red scare and everyone believe that god was the only thing that would show if they were loyal americans or not. After 50 or so years though it probaly isn't needed. But just because they don't want to say god doesnt mean the people souldn't pledge themselves to our country.
{2} will be added after this.
1) The phrase, "In God We Trust" is stamped everywhere on our currency. And, although it mentions "God" in it, it does not necessarily mean that it violates the Constitution. The First Amendment states that we have the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. As a result, it is fine that we as a nation acknowledge that there is a God. The phrase does not particularly mean that the nation is establishing a set religion; it's just a form of acknowledgement. "In God We Trust" was printed in the 1800s, because of existing religious sentiment during the Civil War. If it were to be removed, it would erase a symbolic connection to American history, which would be a shame.
ReplyDelete2) As long as an individual practices their religion, without harming others and violating federal and state laws, there isn't any other limit needed to be set. Obviously, if it causes any form of social, economical, or political damage, it should be restricted (as in the case with the Jonestown Massacre). However, if it violates laws, which are already established and enforced, there also needs to be an establishment of boundaries. If Mormons were allowed to practice polygamy, the preservation and protection of the general public good would be violated. Thus, the limit for cases such as, is rational and should be enforced.
{2} There are certain instances where religious practices or religions in general should be stopped or illegal to practice. One such ocassion would definitely be the jonestown massacre. The point that the man didn't give the people a choice to live at all is very wrong and is a threat to the citizens of the country. Such acts should be banned. Freedom of exercise should have a limit but it shouldn't limit religions that don't purposely take the lives of it's followers or endanger the lives of innocents. It should limit religions or philosophies that do endanger citizens and there shouldn't even be a quetion if those type of practices are ok. When someone is willingly able to harm themselves or others then they should be denied the right of free exercise other wise the freedom to excercise their religion is perfectly fine and everyone has the right to believe in what they want.
ReplyDelete@ Victoria And to question your thoughts victoria what if the law of a town, lets just say a southern US town, had a law that said any one who veils their face or wheres a head wrap isn't allowed to practice their religion. What then? Should they be denied the right to partake in their peaceful religious beliefs or should they obey the law and stop exercising their freedom of religion.???
ReplyDelete1. One thing that the government did about religion was sensoring holidays from the telivision. Many radio stations and sites from the internet will now say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah. Though I do not mind saying Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkak. Its the season of joy and stress so I have to problems there. If you don't believe in Christmas, then go to work :P. Good Friday is still being used as a day off work or a day of school. So government is not really seperate from the church if the school is involve. It is against the first amendment's seperation of church and state.
ReplyDelete2. I don't mind the limits right now. As long as it does not go against the law by being jackasses or disturbing the peace, I'm fine. As Cody said, drugs should not be limited. If the drug starts to harm the people around them such as the family, then the government has the right to step in.
As for the Jonestown Massacre, that guy was abusive and crazy. Those people need to chill out and grab a twix/klondike bar. I know some of them are forced to lived there, but there are some who are zombified to follow Jim Jones.
1) I couldn't really think of anything original so I'm just going to mention the fact that A) you must swear on the bible and B) the word God is used in court when you swear to tell the truth. Basically using religion to make sure promises are kept and being able to be punished when they are not. I can't really tell you whether it should be legal, because many religions and denominations believe in a being in which they refer to as "God", therefore it doesn't necessarily establish a religion, but instead, kind of narrows it down to a few. Whether or not its in violation, it exists because we love tradition. Because the founding fathers believed in "God", many religious "traditions" were established just out of habit. No intent to harm or insult, just good ol' respect to your deity. I think that it IS time for a change though, just because it doesn't mean the same to foreigners. If a muslim is persecuted, swearing to "God" would not be any sorts of a binding oath. Bottom line: not necessarily "illegal", but it should be updated.
ReplyDelete2) Free Exercise should be like any other civil liberty. It should be enforced as far as it doesn't infringe on someone else's liberties. Obviously, if it presents a clear and present danger it should be curtailed but also if the practice poses as an insult to someone else in their own faith, cause that's how Holy Wars are started.
1. In my opinion, the topic that would seem to be talked about the most is when the President and other government officials swear in with their hand on the Bible. I would think that many people would see such an act as having religious implications in an attempt to establish Christianity as an "official" religion of America. There is obviously some reason that the Bible is chosen to be used and not any other religious book or a historical document like the Constitution itself. On the other side of it though, we know that if the President were suddenly sworn in using the Qua'ran then people would be in an uproar, so what is there to do?
ReplyDeleteI think that using the Bible to swear in government officials, even at the highest level, is perfectly legal. I don't think that doing so promotes Christianity over any other religion or degrades any other religion. When have you heard a Christian say, "Haha, the President swears in on my Bible and not your book, take that!" Never. And when has anybody immediately become a believer when they saw the Bible and the President together? Once again, probably never. And who knows, maybe when the early Americans started using the Bible to swear in officials, they never had any intention of religious affiliation, but instead intended to highlight the moral values within the Bible that are instilled in our country today.
I do not see any violations for using the Bible to swear in the President. To me it is simply a tradition that America just "does". Who really cares what it means, just let it be and move on with like people have been doing for hundreds of years.
2. I believe that if one religion has the right to express themselves as they please then the same right should be extended to all religions. However there are lines that must be drawn and rules to follow. There should be a set of personal conduct laws that are made to ensure the safety of others above all other things, and from those laws religions should be required to abide. A man or woman can do what he or she wants in whatever form of worship they desire, but only as long as it doesn't harm somebody else. For example, even though drug use sounds reasonable if that person's religion requires it, once they are under the influence of that drug then they become a threat to the safety of others, so that can't be allowed.
Jim Jones was crazy. There is no denying that. However, he is not the only radical religious figure to ever walk this earth. Thousands of men and women have caused deaths of others through their teachings for thousands of years and it still happens today. No form of laws restricting or allowing practice is going to stop that.
As for this entire topic, I really couldn't care less. It is very interesting to talk about, but even more interesting to look from the outside and see people get so bent out of shape over such trivial things. What does it matter if we say "One Nation Under God," if our coins say, "In God We Trust," if we have a moment of silence, if the President is sworn in on a Bible? America has been around for over 200 years and these same things have been done the entire time, and the country has gotten along perfectly fine. And there most certainly were people of other religion who probably didn't believe in God, but just moved on. If your belief system is so shaky that these trivial things shake your foundation and belief system so much, then maybe the problem isn't the government, maybe the problem is you. Is anyone really being harmed by these things? Because just as easily as I can have someone say "Happy Haunnaka" to me and let it roll off my shoulder, I should be able to say "Merry Christmas" to them. If your foundation is built on a hill of sand, so weak that the first controversial topic knocks it all over, then look to yourself first.
Victoria, I'm liking the background info of the "In God We Trust" business. I also think that although it mentions "God" (God forbid), its so deeply routed in our country's history, that taking it off would raise a bigger hubbub than complaining about it.
ReplyDeleteHerp Derp, I like your critical and highly analytical thinking. Amen to that. haha... religion is so easy to poke fun at. But anyways, I also agree that any sort of victimless drug use, especially for purposes of faith, should be completely legal. I mean, peyote? Come on, they were here way before us and if THEY were in charge of this shin-dig, sure we'd all be morbidly obese, but the environment and society would probably be better off. Just look at Avatar: the white man was the destructive, greedy one while the natives were kind and nurturing.
1) it seems kind of odd to me that a president should swear on the bible when when he is sworn into office. Is that not establishing a religion in the government? And when Obama said before he swore in that he wouldn't swear in on the bible, why was everyone freaking out? It's a man's personal decision to have his own religion, not to be told to follow what everyone else is told. It seems like a violation of the separation of church and state to be a common institution in the American government. As to why that exists, I think that the government likes to focus on the moral teachings the bible tells us (love thy brother, don't steal, stuff like that) so swearing to the bible in that aspect shows a good, appropriate president. But that's just my idea.
ReplyDelete2) As far as free exercise is concerned, I could really care less about what you do in your free time or what religion you believe in. I'd say that we have a good balance of free exercise (except for that ground zero mosque fiasco). Other than that I really don't care about what religion people practice as long as they don't fierce it on me.
@Kevin
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no dear boy! You have it all wrong. The reason people get bent out of shape about "establishing a religion" is that it influences laws made, which may hurt other people.
Such as gay marriage.
As to the "One nation under God" and various things like that, yes, they are trivial. Even thought it is still technically unconstitutional, is it really affecting people that much? Not really. It's not restricting their freedoms or anything, based off of a bias.
@Frank: Good work, chap! Why are we dictating what they do with their religion when, actually, their religion was most likely "founded" before "ours"? And of course we took their land blah blah etc.
1. I'm going to agree with Cameron, why do we have people swear on the bible if it potentially means nothing to them? It's not religiously binding if they don't believe. Is forcing someone to swear on the bible going against their freedom of religion? If that's the case, shouldn't you be able to swear on anything you want? It doesn't make sense to use a bible when a bible carries totally different levels of significance to different people.
ReplyDelete2. I think people should be allowed to believe and do what they want to do, unless it harms other people. If it harms themselves and only themselves, fine. People should be allowed to make their own choices, but they must be held to deal with the consequences.
Jonestown- The people that committed suicide were probably so used to following Jones like the messiah that they either didn't question it, or the peer pressure got to them. I imagine that they looked up to Jones in some twisted way they trusted him. If they really didn't want to die, they would have fought back. It is not possible to murder 900 people in cold blood. Some part of them had to go along with it.
@Kevin
ReplyDeleteSwearing on the bible is indeed something that America just "does". But, why do we do it? If you're religious and believe in the "power" or significance of the bible, then it makes sense. However, if you do not believe that the bible has any sway then you may as well swear on Green Eggs And Ham. It's a matter of what we believe in and stand for as a nation.
Not religious = God doesn't mean crap = Swearing on bible absolutely pointless.
1) one example of establishment of religion in the government would be the phrase "In God We Trust" that is printed on the money we use everyday. I say that it is not illegal because the government isn't prefering one religion over the other. I personally don't have a problem with this and believe that the reason we do stuff like this or like the oath on the bible, is because our nation was founded by mostly conservative Christians.
ReplyDelete2)I think free excersise should not be limited as long as you are not harming anyone or forcing your ideas on someone. THis is a country where the people are free to do virtually anything as long as they dont break the laws. I really dont think it matters if you have to swear on a bible before court or say the pledge with the words "under God". This is the way the nation was brought up, so we all can be free of persecution. You dont have to do things like say the pledge of alligence or swear on the bible but that is just the way we wear all raised. And I guarantee that is a lot better than having the government tell you what to think and tell you what to believe (Nazi Germany) or even censor the press (Communist Russia). As far as im concerned, we are all lucky to have a nation based off Christianity and not Communism!
*) I think the Jonestown incident was blown way out of proportion. Jim Jones was a psycho and did whatever he could to force his beliefs over people. I personally dont know why so many people followed and lived with him in Guyana. I think he took advantage of the African Americans and gained their trust just so he could get all their money.
1) So this may be a little bit of a far stretch, but with the nation predominantly Christian, we have sundays as the "day of rest." Where people go to church, and many people have the day off or at least my parents do. In many states, alcohol sales are either prohibited or restricted on sundays. This has to do with the Christian day of rest. Which many would just pass this over and just say "meh, oh well." But to me it is kind of strange, we do not have a national religion, and we have the first amendment to protect us from laws, like this. This is not a huge issue, but just to think that you can't buy alcohol, just because of it being a religious holy day, doesn't really make sense. This is a small thing, but still something that government interferes in, with religious backing.
ReplyDelete2) For free exercise, as long as people do not harm others while practicing, and do not cross any federal or state law, I say let them do it. It is the decision of the people themselves, for what they believe in, and what they practice. People that take offense from other people's practices should think about the fact that the people they dislike, may not agree totally with what they do, but there is no out lash towards them. Some things are taken too seriously, and people just need to learn to accept others and let people mind their own business.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) A current example of the government establishing religion, can be one that we spoke of in class today. Pausing for the moment of silence was originally intended for prayer, and has been known as that for quite some time. (but is often misinterpreted to be used for the honoring of the troops.) The moment of silence is for those who wish to pray. However, those who do not want to pray, must still remain silent, but are not forced to pray. They can do other things for the short moment of time in which others might do so. Because people are not being forced to participate in the prayers, the moment of silence does not infringe upon any rights stated in the first amendment and as such is legal.
ReplyDelete2) Free Exercise, can go essentially to as far as it can until it begins to offend or disturb others within the community. Although people may be able to exercise their own beliefs, they can not infringe upon the rights that are also guaranteed to others. It is at that point that some action needs to be taken.
1. Depending on your point of view, anything that could potentially be considered establishing or attempting to at least. There are references to god in all sorts of places on and in things we use and see and read everyday. Money for example. Just cause god is written on bills does not mean that religion is being promoted. I dont think that this is the intent of having the word printed on our money. It is not illegal and is not promoting any religion or any religious affiliations within the government.
ReplyDelete2. Free exercise is appropriate but it has its limits. If you want to practice your religion go ahead, no one is going to stop you but if you for some stupid reason get out of control. If their practices start to become harmful to either themselves or those around them then i believe that they should be stopped before and permanent damage is done.
1)I agree with Cody, the only reason that gay rights are being challenged is because of the Christian influence in America. To better explain this, I have devised a hypothetical situation. (Also, in no way am I comparing gay people to Satan. its just an example to explain how christian influence is affecting America)
ReplyDeleteWhat if Lucifer himself lived in America? Regardless if he had done anything wrong, would we as Americans arrest him simply for being the devil? Judgmentally speaking, Christians in America would probably choose to arrest him based off of what they believe about him. However, since, technically it is not illegal to be the devil, protectors of the constitution would let him live here as a free citizen until he actually broke a law. Hypothetically, we would be able to live side by side with Satan because of separation of church and state and the first amendment.
2)I believe that we should not discriminate against people's religion as long as it hurts no one else.I may not be into polygamy, snake charming, or peyote but someone else may be.
Rastafarian's use marijuana for connecting with their God "Jah" and meditation and medical use, though its not promoted for recreational use. 6 in 10 Jamaicans are Rastafarian but ganja is still illegal in Jamaica.
As for the Jamestown thing... thats just messed up. They were pretty much forced to die, which is why it's classified as a massacre, even though they killed themselves. they were afraid to think differently because of what might happen to them.
@Julian:
ReplyDelete"This is a country where the people are free to do virtually anything as long as they dont break the laws."
"As far as im concerned, we are all lucky to have a nation based off Christianity and not Communism!"
I lol'd.
I believe that one of the most blatant forms of government establishment of religion is the illegality of gay marriage. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Because our nation is predominantly Christian, the majority feels that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. However, this should qualify as the government establishing a religion, since not everyone in America is Christian. Personally, I don’t agree with the banning of gay marriage in the majority of America. Being gay is not something you develop over time, or choose to be; you’re born gay. This group of people is being robbed of their freedoms as American citizens, solely because they aren’t a part of the majority. Is it legal? Well yes, the banning of gay marriage is legal, but should it be? In my opinion, not at all. Like I said before, this law only exists because the majority or society follows a religion that is against gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteAs for free exercise of religion, I feel that it should be treated as any other civil liberty. As long as the exercise is not presenting a “clear and present danger” to anyone else, there should be no problem with it. If the exercise is disrespectful to another religion, or if it infringes on the rights of others, then is should be dealt with.
Oh and Jonestown Massacre… insane. Here’s a video of Jim Jones’ Son- Stephan, speaking about the massacre. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJURAVi6wpA
1.The ban on gay marriage violates the establishment clause because it favors all religions with the implication that homosexuality is morally wrong. The concept that marriage is between a man and woman originates in the bible, and though our founding fathers may have been influenced predominately by Christian principles that continue to exist in America today, if our laws were truly secular and unaffected by religion, and then gay marriage wouldn't be illegal. Which pretty much also covers why it exists. It's founded on biblical/ religious principles and enough people still support those morals to fight it.
ReplyDelete2. I guess people have the right to kill themselves if that's what they want...
but it's pretty messed up when you have kids brainwashed saying, "I''m prepared to die for this family if I have to for freedom," and the fact that those who refused were forced to take it. Clearly crossing a line there. Basically as long as Free Exercise doesn't harm or infringe upon the rights of others, people should have the freedom to do what they please. Like if doing drugs is part of the religion, as long as someone isn't, say, driving (or something potentially dangerous to others) while under the influence, then they should be allowed to.
Kevin- Well said, "If your foundation is built on a hill of sand, so weak that the first controversial topic knocks it all over, then look to yourself first." If people aren't religious or don't believe in God, then why should it matter to them if they are swearing on the Bible?
Ty- great example! It kind of coincides with national holidays that are Christian based. We get Christmas off, but what about Hanukah or other religious days of worship? Not saying that we shouldn't celebrate Christmas or Easter, because nowadays a majority don't associate it with religious meaning anyway, but the fact that it favors Christianity is interesting.
Something that seems like the government establishing religion recently could be the controversy over the building of a mosque on ground zero. Now i know that religion isnt the only resaon why this is a big deal but at the same time, by telling them they cant, isnt that favoring one religion over another? You are denying that religion the right to build their church wherever they please. If it was a church it would probably be no big deal. I dont think it is legal. The government is establishing religion through its action. The main reason the problem exists is because obviously muslim extremists were behind the attack. It offends some people that they would attack our country then build a mosque on the very land they soiled.
ReplyDeleteI think free exercise should go as far as it pleases as long as no one is involved that does not want to be involved or has no choice, does not disrupt society, and is not blantantly dangerous. If someone wants to join a creepy, odd cult go right ahead, but if there practices harm individuals then it should not be allowed. Its hard to draw a line in some ways because for example self mutilation or "assualt". What if the "priest" cutting you is part of the ceremony? I mean yeah its harming you but arent you choosing that harm? Or what about brainwashing? Those people in Jamestown sure seemed brainwashed to me but how could you prove they didnt want to be there? Freedom of religion in that case cost 900 people their lives and they had very little choice in the manner.
1. A major instance of government trying to establish religiion is in the fact thst homosexual marriage is illegal, as many other students have also said. Leviticus 20:13 states "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death. Their blood is on their heads." As this clearly shows Christianity is against homosexuality. This is the major influence on our government becuase most Americans have been trained and socialized into these values. This shows a sense of Christian establishment, something that is not right or legal. I think the only reason the government can get away with banning gay marriage is because of the definition of obscenity. Technically gay marriage could be taken as obscene because it could be said to offend the average American. I am not saying this is a correct interpretation in any form, but it just seems thats the way it might be taken as a loophole. The government has no right to ban it, however, as people should be allowed to do as they please in this regard because of freedom of expression. I guess it comes down to which you hold in higher esteem; freedom of expression or obscenity.
ReplyDelete2. Free exercise should be allowed to go so far as it does not harm innnocent individuals. If you think the best way to honor and worship your diety or religion is by doing drugs to better connect, more power to you. Why should I or anyone else stop you? as long as lives and well being of others is not brought into question, freedom of expression gives them the right to act as they choose.
The Jonestown Massacre was an extremely horrible tragedy, and Jim Jones was psychotic. He felt his power was so great that he had the right to make these people commit suicide. No man or woman on Earth should or will have this power because of individual right to life. It is also sad he felt the need to take the lives of so many children especially.
1. SO......religious organizations are exempt from the federal income tax and are granted postal privelages? how the hell is that separation of church and state? thats like duquette not talking about herself or making fun of my citizenship...it doesnt make sense!!! this is clearly a violation as these two are forming a relationship in which religion benefits because its religion. Also it is favoring those organizations because they are excluding other groups from these privelages. and since religious people are generally the ones who protest there isnt much protest going around on this because they are benefitting in this situation
ReplyDeleteI think Free exercise should go as far as the public allows it to. as long as its not harming or purposefully threatening another group. I belive ammendments should negate each other such as freedom of expression and religion could be overturned by the fact that we all have equal protection under the law. Just as we discussed in class...it will go as far as it wants until someone has the balls to challenge it and call the courts and Congress out on it.
And clearly the Jonestown thing is crazy and even crazier to think that these people were manipulated into killing themselves. seriously guys? they clearly had a choice and could have walked away.
1. Public establishments having special religious days off is an obscured establishment of religion. We all get Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter off of school, these holidays are just disguised under the names of "winter break" or "spring holiday". Because of these manipulated names the government does not actually violate any laws. And nobody really cares to challenge this because (other than the fact that most of us already celebrate these holidays) who doesn't want another excuse for a day off? So really it's a win win situation. However, the only down side to this, is that not all other religions receive the same privelages as Christianity. Other religions do not receive days off for some of their most significant religious days, and playing favoritism is not very constitutional of the government.
ReplyDelete2. everyone should be free to exercise religion to whatever extent they want as long as they don't harm others in some shape or form. honestly i don't think that polygomy is outright illegal. If it is someone's religion to be polygomous, then they should be allowed to be polygomous as long as it's consensual. Of course the reason why it is most likely outlawed is because the "consensual" part has been proven by history to be absent in most cases. likewise, drugs should be allowed for religious reasons. However, the only problem with drugs is its harmful effects on the body. so religions should be allowed to continue their drug practices as long as they agree not to go running to the hospitals once their sorry asses get emphysema or something. if you're gonna harm yourself for a religion go ahead, just don't make the rest of taxpayers have to pay for your self-induced illnesses. also for both polygomy and drug use, only people over 18 should be allowed to practice these. because these religious practices are highly likely to either bring about harm or mysery, religious followers should be of a rationable decision making age before they are allowed to completely follow their religion.
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-26/politics/creationism.evolution_1_creationism-jeffrey-selman-school-board?_s=PM:EDUCATION
ReplyDeleteIm not sure if anyone mentioned teaching creationism in schools yet, but ill read posts later. Telling students in a government funded facility that God created man clearly favors the monotheists. why does this subject have to be a part of a curriculum? If it is such a big deal to teach, why teach it in a classroom. The student's parents can tell them what to believe. yet,the decision is still allowed because majority rules and no one challenges it in court.
Free exercise should only go as far as all beliefs but not all practices. Sacrifice, polygamy, and drug use are currently outlawed. that seems just fine to me.if someones religion doesnt affect any other person's, im fine by that.
@jordan- I only speak for myself here, but im pretty sure this is how the teaching creationsim goes. In World History i learned about all different kinds of religion, one was not given more time than another. Then in AP Biology i was shown the THEORY of evolution. It was made clear that it is only a theory and that the teacher is not teaching what is known to be fact, only what is relevant to the course. So yes they teach religion in school, but as far as my education has gone, it was in a purely educational form nothing being pushed
ReplyDelete@Jake- I find the whole obscene v free expression thing pretty interesting. I never thought of looking at it from that angle. To me it was always simply that they are denying Americans the right to freely express themselves. I guess one could argue that it is "Obscene" but it is only obscene because of religous values. So even if most people saw it as obscene i still dont think it is right to ban it because the only reason it is obscene is because of those values.
ReplyDeleteJust some thoughts on the idea
@Cody
ReplyDeleteWith what I said about these things being trivial and having virtually no importance applies to the things I mentioned. To me, gay marriage is a completely different issue that I don't associate with the others. I agree with you that the only thing restricting gay marriage is religion, and that is by definition unconstitutional. I didn't mean to make it seem like gay marriage was thrown in with all those others.
Regardless of your beliefs, the government needs to allow gay marriage if the only thing prohibiting it is religion. Just like how an atheist has to deal with "In God We Trust", those oppossed to gay marriage just have to accept that America is a country that grants equal freedom to everybody of every preference, whether you like it or not
@Jake and Mitch
ReplyDeleteI like this conversation about gay marriage possibly being obscene and offensive to the average American. The fact is, a majority of Americans from nearly any location would call gay marriage to be offensive. But like you said, it is probably based on religion. But does that matter? Just like at school dances when they ban "dirty dancing", that is becuase adults in the community they find it offensive. Why is that? Could it not be because Americans have been programmed to see children as a pure? And that purity is defined in the Bible. So does that also have religious implications? Its interesting
@Jonah
ReplyDeleteI really like what you said about having to be 18 to partake those religious practices. At that age, most people have decided what they believe in, and can then make an educated decsion on whether or not they want to be a part of those activities. At a younger age, children are forced by their parents to engage in these religious practices, often resulting in the child having no say whatsoever.
@Spencer
ReplyDelete"Not religious = God doesn't mean crap = Swearing on bible absolutely pointless."
Good point. I never thought of it that way before. It makes you wonder how many people who don't follow the bible have sworn on it, when in reality, it doesn't mean anything to them. Weird.
@ Jonah I agree with you that most religions get screwed out of getting national holidays. I never really noticed that we only get holidays basd off of Christianity, Judaism, and Catholicism.
ReplyDelete@ spencer That isso true what you said about the people that dont believe in God who swear on the bible before taking office. It doesnt make sense for them to swear on something they dont believe in. Another example is when your in court and you give your testimony and before you can start being asked questions they make you "swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God."
@ Jonah- Interesting example. Although you bring up a good point, and it is true that most other religions don’t get their holidays off nationally, I think there is a larger reason for the nation-wide celebration of specific religious holidays. Most of those holidays have over time been incorporated into our culture. Let’s face it, not everyone who celebrates Christmas agrees in the validity of its origin. Our culture has turned those religious holidays into cultural holidays (i.e. Santa Clause on Christmas, the Easter Bunny). So it would make sense that it’s a national celebration: not because of religion, but because of our culture. (I don’t necessarily agree that that’s right, but that is essentially what our society has done).
ReplyDelete@ Jordan K- I would actually go in the opposite direction. It seems today like no schools, except private Christian schools, are teaching creationism. In fact, a lot of religious people and institutions are getting upset about the wise-spread teaching of evolution. When I took biology, there was nothing about intelligent design mentioned, only evolution. I do think that it is fair to teach ALL the ideas about the creation of man (intelligent design, evolution, etc), then tell the students to decide for themselves.
Food for thought: With the Jonestown Massacre, do you think that they belonged to a religion, or a cult?
@ Victoria- I did not think about the ties to civil war with the statement "In God We Trust." It makes sense now, but I still see some contraversy in it. Just like the arguments about "Under God" in the pledge, it is establishing some form of religion, may not be a single denomination of religion, but still has religious ties.
ReplyDelete@Taylor(and others who picked gay marriage)- I agree with what you said about that, no where does it say in the constitution that gay marriage is illegal, and it doesn't say that marriage is a union between a woman and a man. It is the tie of religion in people's lives that stop them from passing bills to give homosexuals equal rights. This is a prime example of establishment of religion in the USA, due to the fact that many Americans are christian, and they believe in the union of one man and one woman.(Not all people may believe this, but it is more common than not.)
To this "gay is obscene" conversation. I agree, it is quite an interesting concept and while I realize, Jake, that you said you don't necessarily agree with it/it doesn't make it right that they're not letting gays get married, one needs to ask oneself:
ReplyDeleteWhat's more important? Granting freedoms to the homosexuals, or shielding Americans' eyes from the "obscenity" that is gay marriage?
@Lacie: Religion is, by strict definition, a cult. So, they're one in the same.
Also, you claim that the biology teachers should teach creationism and evolution, but the thing is, they're only teaching creationism based off of Christianity. They never teach creationism from other forms of religion. Is that not a violation of the establishment clause? Either don't teach creationism at all, or teach every single form of it.
@ Julian
ReplyDeleteWould you be offended if you were a religion that is not Christianity? You said you don't have a problem with "In God we trust" part of the dollar bill. Do you think other religion ignore this part? Though I'd yet to hear anyone complain. Buddhist people have no god and Hindu kids have many gods. Just pointing it out.
@ Cameron
I agree that it is strange that political leaders have to swear to the bible. It does goes against the 1st amendment. Witnesses in court have to swear to the bible as well. What if they were Islamic car bombing people? Do they swear to the Quran? I don't think so.
No matter how much i hate saying it, Cody id have to agree with you on the whole dont teach Creationism at all. While i would love to see it taught, it simply is not constitutional. But in all reality, i dont see too often where they actually teach about the Bible just about all the relgions general ideas and how they originated. But that is aside the fact. The point of most peoples arguement is if you teach evolution, you must teach creationism. But if you want to learn about God, then that should not be done on the governments time. It is your free right as an American to learn about God all you want in your free time. The thing is, evolution is scientific theory which is relevant to specific courses. Creationism isnt (at least not in public schools). As long as it is made clear it is just a theory then really only evolution should be taught.
ReplyDeleteCody: I would have to agree with Lacie, in regards to your mention of drinking as a religious practice. Because the Christian religion takes wine as a representation of holy blood, they only sample it. However, if there was a religion that allowed you to get "wasted" that's when a limit should be set, because there is potential for people who abuse the drinking power to be destructive. So, like Lacie said, there is a difference between a simple sip and a complete kamikaze dive into an alcoholic binge.
ReplyDeleteMason: To answer your question, no, people should not be denied the right to wear "a head wrap" or cover their faces with "veils". If there are laws that limit the freedom of religion and expression, such as the one with polygamy, there should be a reasonable explanation for the enforcement of that law. The act that the government is trying to prevent must endanger others. Thus, because wearing a head wrap does not cause harm or infringe upon another person's ability to practice their religion, I do not believe that such a law should be followed, if there ever was to be one in the first place.
Khanh: I agree with you when you stated that people should just simply go to work, if they do not believe in Christmas. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case for many corporations in the United States. For an example, shopping malls across the nation close for the Christmas Holiday. Even if you were a Jew, and wanted to go to work, you wouldn't be able to.
Frank: In regards to swearing on the Bible in court and elsewhere, like Ms. Duquette stated, there are other options besides swearing to the Bible. People choose to and are not forced; so, technically it isn't an infringement on the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the idea that the nation becoming all shaken up when a government doesn't swear on the Bible, is pretty ridiculous.
Ty, Sarah, and Jonah: All of you mentioned the inequality other religions receive, compared to Christianity. However, because of the majority of the nation is Christian, I don't think that they would accept having to take a "break" from an wage earning day for anyone else. It is completely unfair, but that's the way that it is. ://///
@ Cody- Religion and cult, by strict definition, are different; it is a fallacy to say that they’re the same. According to the dictionary, here are their definitions: “religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs; a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Cult- a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies; an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers.”
ReplyDeleteBasically, a cult is a movement with religious traditions, but centered on a matter that society would deem obscene, such as human sacrifice.
Also, in regards to teaching evolution vs. intelligent design, I did say that schools should teach all ideas about creation, including but not limited to evolution and intelligent design. So I do agree with you there, they should teach several different forms of creationism to let the student then decide.