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)
2. Free Exercise of Religion should only go as far as to the point where the religion is not a harm to others. As we read from John Mill's "On Liberty", our inherent rights apply as long as they remain personally affecting. This meaning that as soon as our choices start affecting others in harmful ways, they are not our rights. A case illlustrating this was the case of only a couple years ago with polygamist cult leader, Warren Jeffs, who was the "prophet" of the Yearning For Zion Ranch just outside of Eldorado, Texas. He took Free Exercise of Religion too far as he took the rights of his followers in sexually assaulting them and forcing them to engage in statutory rape and bigamy. This, while in his mind Freedom or Religion, was a stripping of the human rights of his followers, who suffered at his hand for the sake of "God and glory".
ReplyDeleteOne of the most common examples is the government establishing religion is keeping the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. People argue to this day whether children saying "under God" violates the establishment clause because it makes children "affirm a religious belief" or whether it is simply meant to be patriotic and has no true religious affiliation ( http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=13041) The court case Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow involved Newdow, an athiest, charging that it violated his daughter's first amendment rights. I personally don't see how saying "under God" would violate the establishment clause. The establishment clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Because of how vague and merely symbolic the phrase is, I don't see how it can be taking as "Establishing religion" but merely referencing it.
ReplyDeleteAnd obviously free exercise should Never go as far as the Jonestown Massacre. Clearly he had Serious mental health issues and his problems went way beyond his religion, but he used it as a platform to fulfill his plans. Unfortunately, there are people out there who still would have fallen victim to a person like that. People should be allowed to practice their religions in church, in the comfort of their home, or where-ever they please. I Personally believe that a line should be drawn where people try and convert others to a religion. To me, this oversteps boundries. You could argue that it is a person's first amendment right to knock on my door and ask me if I've ever wanted to "discover Jesus," but then again it is also my first amendment right to shut the door in their face (not that I actually would, this is hypothetical) , SO I think why even bother. There's My line.
An example of government establishment of religion would have to be having religious holidays as federal holidays, such as Christmas day. This is meant to allow people to celebrate these days who want to celebrate them. Of course, the majority of these days are Christian holidays, with only a couple Jewish holidays mixed in. If America is truly supposed to be a nation free of an established religion, I don't know exactly how legal this can be since Christianity is obviously favored in this regard.
ReplyDeletePeople should be able to freely practice their religion, whatever it may be, without negatively impacting those around them-anything from going on shooting sprees or carrying signs declaring that "God hates gay people". This is difficult, considering that people have different definitions of what a negative impact would be. Warren Jeffs thought that he was doing a good deed when he was marrying his male followers to underage girls. I'm not sure if a clear line can be defined without an outcry of those saying that their constitutional right is being restricted. When people's fundamental rights get put into play, these matters get a lot trickier.
1. A Christian biased establishment of religion in America is definitely shown in our capital and currency. "In God we trust" is a statement written on every piece of coinage and bills that this country produces, distributes, regulates, and uses as a means of trade. Even those who do not believe in the Christian God represented here must use this method of trade, despite religion. To remove and irradicate this slogan from the money would be costly and time consuming. It would be a hassle for wait and pay for this just so the current currency will fall out of use, this being the reason that it is less disputed than other most easily changed areas of bias. It has existed for decades upon decades, showing the fundemental values this country was built upon and its founding fathers honored. But this constant reminder of religious is an obvious violation as it gives religious preference.
ReplyDeleteI am not entirely sure this counts as an example of government establishment of religion, but here’s the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-23/us/oklahoma.islamic.law_1_oklahoma-courts-sharia-law-first-amendment?_s=PM:US
The article is about an Oklahoma referendum to ban the use of the Sharia (Islamic Law) in the state courts. A judge put a restraining order on the referendum, and Muneer Awad (executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma branch) said that the referendum violated both the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.
My reaction: This is a tough question. From one perspective, not being allowed to write one’s will according to one’s religious beliefs (the ban would void private documents like wills that were written according to Islamic law) is a violation of the free-exercise clause. However, the courts that use or consider Muslim law (in this case) are state courts, of the state of Oklahoma, of the United States of America. Personally, I think this ban does not go far enough, and was implemented in the wrong spirit. I think if religious laws are to be banned in court, that is fine… but the legislators should ban all religious laws rather than singling out Muslims. My reasoning is that “religious laws” regard religion (obviously) but in a STATE court (a government institution) the laws that should be used are the laws of the federal government and the state, which should have nothing to do with religion. I think this is fair, because the state and national laws are regulated by the Constitution, and as such can be modified to ensure equality of all people before the law. The Sharia, however, is subject to no regulation and as such can be interpreted to fit the individual’s morals and views. I think that this referendum was implemented in the wrong spirit; that is, the people who voted for it might have been attempting to discriminate against Muslims rather than fix a First Amendment violation.
Free –Exercise: I think people have the right to practice any belief, religious or otherwise, to whatever extent they choose….until the practice causes physical, mental, or emotional damage to someone. I am not talking about hurt feelings because someone does not want to participate in someone else’s religion; I am referring to emotional abuse. I think that cults are sometimes dangerous, but the government’s way of handling them (as shown in Waco, Texas) can be just as damaging to the sometimes brainwashed followers. I think that there is a fine line between what is covered under the free-exercise clause and what is going to far; the line is much thinner regarding the safe, effective, efficient handling of a free-exercise situation versus the method of handling the situation that goes horribly wrong and ends as a massacre.
1. An example of Government establishment of religion would be the writing of in God We Trust on national currency. The statement is in fact legal as the courts ruled that it a describition of the Country as a a whole but rather an expression to represent the ideals America was founded on such as libery and individualism.
ReplyDelete1.
ReplyDeleteLocke v. Davey (2004)
I decided to pick a Supreme Court decision on religious liberty and this is the most recent one available. Not necessarily current but it is definitely still a factor in today's society.
This case focused on the granting of federal monies to students pursuing a religious career of some kind. I personally do not believe that this is in support of religion. This was already mentioned, but our country was founded on religion and religion can not escape our everyday lives, including the dollars in our wallets.
Religion is taught in schools every day, and schools are funded by the government. One example is with the church that I attend. The church also has a school and at one point changed its name from Cross of Christ Christian School to North Valley Christian Academy. I am not sure why other than to sound more appealing and intellectual to people and to possibly bring in more students. Basically religion had emphasis taken off of it.
In the end it depends on how we look at it. Is a government official, that is paying a religious school to teach their child, breaking the law? Is the government breaking the law by paying and allowing the official to pay the school? Is the official breaking the law by placing money into the offering basket on a Sunday morning? Is a government official breaking the law because they have to spend a penny more to drive around a church that is in their way?
There is a point when things get out of control and we need to question our own motives before we question the motives of others.
2.
No one can stop someone from believing or thinking in a certain way. The same goes for education and how this can not be taken from you.
Only when a religion calls for laws to be broken can the Free Exercise Clause be questioned. This includes any harm done to others in any way.
1. continued... In my opinion,"In God we trust" does support a specific religion and thus should be considered illegal. It puts the spotlight on Christianity and reconogizes the existence of a god rather than other dieties such as Allah. Therefore, I belive it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete2. Free exercise should only be allowed if no other individual or group is harmed. A citizen should be allowed to believe what they believe and support their reliion a hundred percent. However, when others are disrupted by the citizen's display of religion then it should be stopped. It should be tolerated to a point where safety becomes an issue.
A big issue that is currently being discussed is whether or not prayer should be allowed in schools or not. Under the Establishment Law, many teachers and school faculties are not allowed to lead any prayers on campus at any time. Students on the other hand, are allowed to lead prayer. In the case Indian School v. Government, May 2, 2010, public school officials have declared that they will not appeal a judge’s ruling prohibiting student-led prayer at Greenwood High School graduation ceremonies. U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker banned student-led prayer at he school’s May 28th commencement. Barker stated that “permitting a student-led prayer at Greenwood violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, as does the delivery of a specific prayer set to occur as the result of that process during the upcoming 2010 graduation ceremony.” Greenwood had originally allowed a vote to take place amongst the student body regarding the prayer and many students voted yes for it. Greenwood Superintendent David Edds said “We think the students…who made the decisions to have prayer should be able to have that voice as well.” The prayer violated the first amendment because it violated the rights of the students who voted against the prayer (http://www.newberlinnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/114912594.html). The idea of having a prayer at a graduation technically does violate the Establishment Clause and is therefore illegal, but if a majority of students voted for the prayer and they are denied it, isn’t that a violation of their rights as well? The Establishment clause states that the “government can have no involvement in religion” which obviously plays a big role here.
ReplyDeleteFree-Exercise should not go beyond the point where someone is harmed. IN the case Indian School v. Government, the prayer being said at the graduation went as far to hurt those who originally voted against the prayer, for it violated their rights. A line should be drawn to the point where people try to force others to convert to their religion. People have the choice to convert on their own and it is a violation of their rights if they are forced to convert. People do however have the right to express their religion wherever they feel like as long as it does not bring harm to others.
This discussion immediately splinters into two camps:
ReplyDeleteCamp 1: An “established” religion is one that has been put in place by a power/government/authority, and includes laws that set that religion above other religions in a legal sense.
Camp 2: A “favored” religion is one that is shown particular partiality; to show favoritism to one particular religion does not require legislation.
Notice that the Constitution contains nothing regarding favoritism towards religions, but prohibits legislation “respecting the establishment of religion.”
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?
To my knowledge, the U.S. government has not made laws “respecting the establishment of religion” since the Constitution was adopted (I am excluding the early theocracies, the kind that bred the Salem Witch Trials, etc).
Religion is, however, favored in this country. There are many examples of this, which differ based upon location and time period. Many believe that the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, the words “in God we trust” on our currency, and the national holidays of Christmas, Easter, etc are examples of such favoritism.
2. How far should Free Exercise go? What are appropriate limits? Where's the line?
There is obviously a consensus that free exercise should be limited by safety to oneself and others- which is fortunate, because this is reasonable, and fulfills the purpose of government: to protect the people (John Locke’s idea, not mine). Beyond this, the issue is one of tolerance. Contrary to popular belief, America is a country that tolerates religions of all kinds. Regardless of which are more outspoken or more popular, our laws are tolerant of them.
As far as the Jonestown Massacre is concerned, it is made even more tragic by the fact that most of its participants were voluntary. Some were forced to partake, and in that case, the free exercise of this cult went too far. However, the voluntary participants were victims of their belief in a charismatic madman.
Sidenote: I cannot think of instances in which the government has tried to establish religion, but in fact see the reverse: complete ignorance of religion. A prime example of this is the inadequacy of our education system to offer students a balanced look at the beginning of earth. I remember sitting in eighth grade science class during our unit about Darwinism and evolution (both micro and macro), while having no lessons about Intelligent Design. What is the reason for this inadequacy? On the contrary, in my eighth grade world history class, I learned about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and my teacher also discussed (albeit briefly) various smaller religions with our class- and this was also the case in my sophomore world history class, except without the side-discussion about smaller religions. When analyzed, the discrepancy arises from the intentional removal of Church from State. Efforts to drain schools of potentially overbearing religious influences have morphed into efforts to banish all religion entirely from schools.
1. A current example of government of establishment of religion would be saying “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. The pledge, being a societal norm that students are expected to recite every day, would be considered one of the most well known symbols of the U.S. If we're going by the book – this would be illegal. Having students recite the pledge, which says “under God” in a public school, goes against the law of not having an established religion. Obviously students are not FORCED to say “under God” but they shouldn't have to be given the option in the first place. Just like Muslims are not allowed to interrupt their teachers to do their prayers on their carpet things (not really sure what its called haha), the school day should not be interrupted with something religious. Personally, I believe that in order to not favor Christianity, “under God” should be taken out of the pledge, if we really want to follow our own rules strictly. But then again – a lot of people would be extremely angry and maybe the issues and court cases that would result from this would not be worth it. “Under God” is still allowed because its a societal norm – its always been there and we're used to it. Plus, its also there because our founding fathers were Christians, as well as most of the United States. There has been more controversy in the 2000's than in any other decade before that – possibly hinting towards the growing number of other religions or practices in the U.S. While there has been many court cases stating that saying “under God” violates the first amendment, supreme court judges have ruled it that its a “ceremonial and patriotic nature” and that it does not violate any amendment. This could be due to the religions that the justices hold.
ReplyDelete2. Free exercise should go so far as to not harm others – Jonestown Massacre is a drastic example of how religion can harm people. The appropriate limits I think are so that the practice of your own religion does not break any laws, or infringe on anyones rights. However – this gets complicated when the people following the religion are brainwashed like in instances such as Jonestown.
1.One current example of government establishment of religion is the issue if student's are allowed to wear religious items, such as the cross or a turban to school. I believe that the government currently allows the school district to decide on their policy. However, I disagree with the because I believe everyone has the right to wear a religious symbol, especially if the religions deems it, because wearing the symbol will not harm the majority of the people they encounter with everyday. Is this prohibition legal? It probably is because students' are not given many rights while they attend school. I believe the only reason school districts ban religious attire to ensure that the student population is not insulted.
ReplyDelete2.The limit of the Free Exercise prescribed in the Bill Rights is where the act or event harms a large group of people, multiple states or the country. Free Exercise is appropriate when people employ to benefit the country as whole, however, the line must be drawn where the Free Exercise results in violence and inhumanity. The best example is where the KKK lynched African Americans to prevent equality; the group in this case had to be stopped because they were, in my opinion, irrational and immoral. The true question is how far can we take Free Exercise and use it beneficially without harming many people? I totally agree with Sam on the count that the Jamestown Massacre crossed the line of Free Exercise by a lot, in fact, I believe that the reason for the Massacre was totally unnecessary because the act did not help anyone.
Alana, good job in referring to On Liberty. I agree that some people take religion or beliefs way too far.
ReplyDeleteReligion is a key element in our culture along with every culture on earth. There really is no getting around it. Like it or not everyone has their own religion or beliefs deep down whether they admit it or not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. A prime example of government establishment of religion is the mentioning of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance. This usage of religion in an American oath is legal due to an individual's choice in reciting the Pledge. The word does not diminish a person's ability to practice their religion or attempt to influence one's religious affiliation.
ReplyDelete2. Free exercise should be enforced in all cases where the religious acts are not harmful to society and other individuals. For example, both Jonestown and Heaven's Gate caused violence through brainwashing and force. These religious occurrences should be illegal due to their extremely harmful nature. However, if an individual wishes to hurt themselves for their beliefs, that is their choice and cannot be categorized as illegal. The line should be drawn where the actions or beliefs cause another mental or physical damage.
*amendment to previous post:
ReplyDeletemuslims ARE allowed apparently to pray whenever they like during the school day.
1. A current example of government establishment of religion can be as simple as when someone sneezes. Back in the day, everyone used the words "God bless you". Now, most people use the words "bless you" instead. Most people become offended if they do not believe in God. I do find it legal and right that people say "God bless you" to others even if the other does not believe in God. With freedom of speech, anyone can say "God bless you" because it does not harm anyone physically.
ReplyDelete2. Free exercise should come to a halt when others are harmed or society as a whole. Like Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate also brainwashed their followers and made them commit suicide for "religious purposes". Free exercise should be closely watched in new religious groups because of how strong an impact religion has on people. The line should be made where free exercise becomes dangerous brain washing.
1. Until just recently, Arlington National Cemetery was a hot topic when it came to government and religion. This cemetery used to be lined with crosses as headstones for fallen soldiers. The ACLU challenged the government on this issue and won. Now the headstones are rectangular containing the soldier's name and a symbol of thier family's choice. I agree fully in the decision of the court because many of the thousands of soldiers didn't have a Christian faith and some had no faith at all.
ReplyDelete2. I like how the government limits free exercise. When you harm another person, you are taking away thier rights. This is against the law. Though when someone is brainwashed into thinking that something is beneficial to them and it is not in reality, is this the fault of the person or the person/religion that brainwashed them. Often the person and the brainwasher are both at fault and often they both die, as in Waco Texas or the Jonestown Massacre. As long as no one is harmed, I think we should have full decision on what religion we choose to. Also, laws cannot be broken, although we allow Native Americans to smoke on thier reserves..odd
For the first part of this blog i'm going to pick the topic of getting school days off when there is a religious holiday, like Christmas. on the question on whether i believe it is legal.. yes, i do believe it is. the government as week as school districts have done a pretty good job not showing that we get these types of religious days off. for example we get two weeks off and in those two weeks, Christmas is surprisingly in the middle! now on my stand on it being legal. My family is not religious AT ALL. However, we still celebrate Easter and Christmas. even though these days are of religious background and, probably ALOT of Christian family celebrate doesn't mean everyone celebrates it for the same reason. i celebrate Christmas not because of Jesus was born (i don't think he was born in December though) but some people do. People also celebrate Christmas to be with their families and for that reason school districts and businesses take it upon themselves to pick out those days that children and workers are most likely going to ask for the day off, or parents signing their kids out of school for a couple days. Why don't we get Jewish holidays off? Well at Boulder Creek, i think i know one or two Jews that know of Jewish holidays and the rest of the student body mostly catholic or Christian are saying, "Hey! why don't we get this day off?" School systems know that the Jewish heritage isn't going to swept their school anytime soon, so we don't have it off. Religion is a touchy subject whenever it goes along with something like schooling, but for having days off around these times, i would say that districts and the government are looking at the whole picture and know that when its Christmas, no one is going to do any work.
ReplyDelete2.As free Exercise goes, i think it is something that our country should keep sacred until the line of harming someone or making them do something against their will. If Christians want to wear a cross, go for it. Just don't shove capital G od down my throat. if Jews want to wear ya-micas, i think that is completely acceptable. and if Muslims want to pray to Ala at school or any other time, they shouldn't be frowned upon. The overall scheme to me is just as long as no one is hurt, and also they aren't getting any bias on how their religion is better than another.
The first amendment guarantees protection from the government establishing religion and providing people the opportunity to freely exercise their own religion; however, what happens when the two contradict?
ReplyDeleteMuslim law, known as Sharia law, is a very strict code of conduct used in the Muslim world. Sharia law is laid out in the Quran and through Muhammad's teachings. Recently, throughout the world, Muslims have been pushing to get western democracies to either adopt Sharia law or allow Sharia law to be practiced in these societies. Recently the British courts have adopted Islamic law, allowing Muslims to dispute cases according to their religion. The same thing is being tried in America.
The Muslims want the freedom to be able to practice their own religion, and they can, but not when it comes to the law. Sharia law was created to be a fusion of church and state, to make religious law, the law of the land. This is opposite of the core beliefs of separation of church and state. When the actions of one's religion affects others, then the "free exercise" of that religion has gone too far and is to be limited by the establishment clause.
1. A current example of government establishment of religion is the tax exemptions and special considerations that churches and other religious groups receive. I don't think it's legal because it is almost promoting an increase in the practice of the religion because it allows for more churches to be built. Does that mean that I can start a religion and file for tax exemptions on my property? That'd be pretty awesome. It seems as though whatever the government does it violates the seperation between church and state. If they take the tax money they are getting involved but then by not making them pay taxes they are giving the church an incentive. Seems like a lose-lose situation.
ReplyDelete2.Free exercise should go as far as it's not harming others physically or mentally. If someone wants to engage in dangerous activities, then they should be able to; however, when it gets to the point where people other than the initial person are harmed then the line should be drawn.
An example of the establishment clause in the government is the fact that all Christian holidays happen to be on the days we have as national holidays. I think this is legal because its not establishing a law constricting religion or harming/inhibiting any religion.
ReplyDeleteFree excercise should always be upheld. More important than anything else is our rights. The only exception i could think of is harmful cults like the one Jim Jones created. If the cult is causing damage to a large group of people then there should be an intrusion. But religions always cause harm to someone which is why the right shouldnt be messed with or restrained. Someone will always be offended.
1. A current example of the government establishing religion can be seen in the placements of both the "capitol" and "national" christmas trees in DC. The Capitol Christmas Tree is placed in front of the Capitol building every year, and the National Christmas Tree is similarly planted on the grounds of the White House every year (and is then lit by the President and First Lady, while the capitol tree is lit by the speaker of the house). In neither case is there a "Capitol Menorah" or the like. And even if the president or speaker of the house wasn't Christian, they would likely be expected to light the trees anyway. I don't think this is inherently illegal, though; having a christmas tree can't necessarily be equated to openly promoting a religion, but I do think they should give consideration to other religions since it DOES indicate at least some level of favoritism towards one at the disregard of others (But on a less politically charged note, it does raise the question of how to actually make something like a capitol menorah- they don't exactly lend themselves to the size and grandure that can be achieved by putting up an enormous douglas fir and plastering it with brightly colored ornaments- if for nothing else, the practicality of trying to equally represent all religions would be an impossible task, and, as usual, the goverment tries to cater to the perceived majority- in this case, Christians).
ReplyDelete2. Free Exercise, in my opinion, should be treated as "liberty" was in the Declaration of the Rights of Man from the French Revolution- that it should allow for freedom of expression in so far as it doesn't harm others, since that would inherently be another violation of more basic human rights. If you feel the need to hurt yourself in your quest for religious "ascension" or whatever, then have at it, but the second you hurt someone else in the process, you are now infringing on their right to not have to withstand abuse that goes unhindered by an unresponsive justice system. Their wellbeing overrides your freedom of expression in that case. Similarly, that expresion must operate within the constraints of established laws (like drug use), so long as those laws are also constitutional.
1. Swearing on the bible in court would be a current example of government establishment of religion. Every single person that has ever testified in court in America has been forced to swear upon "the word of God." (notice how I capitalize "God". Only because that's how it's written officially.) Anyways... Those people that swear thier story upon a bible might not believe in God or the bible and therefore it's easy for them to lie about thier testimony even if they are with the pressure of everyone watching. Of course they think that no "God" is going to punish them because they don't even believe in religion so why would the government make it a law to swear upon the majority of America's faith?
ReplyDelete2. I believe that it is a good thing that the government has put a limit on free exercise. It's used as a prevention from breaking federal laws and from dangering themselves or others. If they didn't set regulations on a religion in America just think of how much chaos and corruption would be led throughout the U.S. It's those crazy leaders like Jim Jones and George Roden that the government fears will lead even bigger groups of Americans to rise up and fight against authority. Religion has left so many in fear of themselves, thier families, the goverment, and living all together that the government has a right to intervene when free exercise is stretched out of control.
Freedom of Religion is always a hot topic in America. In the Declaration of Independence they use capital G God and use the word Creator with a capital C. When they mention god they say Nature's God leaving much to be interpreted about which god that actually is. There are many ways in which the American government uses the word God, but they don't use any specific religious persons. For the part about freedom of exercise I think the government is right to limit what religions can and cannot do. While the people participating in the "ceremony" or religion may believe in it and find it to be a good thing, others may not and should not be effected by others decisions.
ReplyDelete@Jessica
The thing that you said about teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools is completely different from teaching World Religions. The purpose of learning about other religions is to understand other peoples culture and life styles. Those classes are also taught from a secular point of view. I think that it would be very difficult for a biology teacher to teach Intelligent Design from a secular view point. People need to be more open minded about the teaching of Evolution in public schools because I have witnessed first hand many students completely ignoring the lesson because they are so strong in their beliefs, but what I think is that those closed minded people are actually very insecure in what they think or they have been told what to think all their lives.
Sam I agree that worrying about a child saying the Pledge is just silly. More than anything because they really do not know what they are saying to begin with. In fact, I bet you most teenagers along with adults do not know what the true meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance is.
ReplyDeleteHere, I wonder if John Wayne can help us out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jf3MQpffBc
There we go, now I get it, thanks John!
Notice what he says about religion and "one nation under God."
"A land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being. A land graced with temples and churches, synagogues and altars; that rise in perfusion to embrace ALL THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD."
I agree John, I agree. By the way, did you write this all by yourself? Those are some awfully big words you got there... ;)
Check out this also on the National Anthem. I thought it was really interesting. Basically I saw this about a month and a half ago because of the new year and all. The man who made the video was not aware of errors that he made, but I still thought it was interesting.
The first video is of him apologizing about the mistakes in the story. He mentions how there has been a second video made which was not released due to also having errors, and that there will be a third video that will have no errors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhMlFUgNUqM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxOrZrHtVjY&feature=related
Anyway I figured I'd share that. ;)
Examples like this makes me sad, since I know with freedom of religion or any sort of freedom there comes people who abuse it, and this "church" are perfect examples of those who go corrupt with this freedom. Also, lolrunonsentances.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know for sure that not everybody abuses it, there for sure are those people that do. This is why i'm not a gigantic supporter of the first amendment totally, but I suppose without it I wouldn't be writing my opinion right now.
1. Like what Ashley said, the fact that within the court both prosecutors and defendants are required to "swear" of the bible (It is the bible right? Or am i just retarded?) This shows about how, as Ms. Duques said, "capital G God" is the main source of religion within America, and how christianity and belief in this God is the most common religion within America and one of the foundations for our countries.
2. I believe people should be free to excercise religion, speech, whatever freedom it may be, but without harming others like the people in this church have by shooting those people. It's taking advantage of the freedom that every american is previleged to get, like what I said earlier. Of course I have no idea how to go about this, so I shouldn't really be saying my opinion without backing it up, so you mat choose to ignore this if you wish.
RICK!-Good job on sharing an example that not everyone in the universe said. I didn't even think about that!
ReplyDeleteJessica/Taylor-
Firstly,Jessica, I understand what you are saying about favoritism versus establishment.It just seems like establishment should somewhat imply that there would be no favoritism, in an ideal world, of course.
Regarding the idea of teaching different viewpoints on evolution and the creation of Earth, I would say that it is not a bad idea at all to not teach religiously charged ideas such as creationism in schools. It is not a teacher's job to teach religious ideas. If a student believes in something other than the scientific aspect taught in schools, then they are going to be learning that outside of school anyway. Learning about world religions cannot really be compared to that, like what Taylor said.
Alison of the House of Stack: You said your example before everyone in the universe did, so yours is awesome too, first off. But I digress. Aaaanyway, your point on the difficulty of defining what can harm others is a very valid one- no doubt if asked the courts would make up some confusing euphemistic response that probably used too many vague adjectives. But making definitions like that seem to be a constant problem, so that wouldn't necessarily be surprising.
ReplyDeleteLaura: Your example about Arlington National Cemetary was really interesting- I totally hadn't thought of that. That's definitely a good example of establishment. They probably only were allowed to continue that one for so long because the main people affected were dead and couldn't complain (which inherently sounds a little morbid, but is also probably true).
@ Jared. First of all you make me laugh. But awesome job with that first video especially, as funny as it sounds I don't think John Wayne could have gotten the point across better. It's just recognizing that America is a land where we have the freedom to express any religion we believe in, not acknowledging we personally believe in a God. Not many other nations can say they live in a country where it is like that.
ReplyDelete@ Robby, I'm with you on where the "line" should be drawn 100%, but only problem is that whether they'll openly admit it or not, religions Do think theirs is better than the others and theres constantly this "missionary battle." Some mornings in the cross of christ knocking on my door, the next morning it could be a jehovah witness, some christians still even believe in missionary Dating and to try and convert. I think religions something a person should come to on their own and it shouldn't be ok for a religious group to pressure people into joining. But hey thats just me.
@ Vhiabov, yeah basically my whole point about Jamestown was that it so showed how easily influenced people can be by their religious leaders and in some Extreme cases like this it can erupt into disaster. I just sort of think it proves that theres no guarentees to any religion being completely safe or stable and each has its own possibility of having extremist groups who split off and try to start a "revolution" or whatever. What I don't know is When does the first amendment step in and say "hey, you've already gone to far." Like, was it too far to even try and convince people to move to South America? How early can something be considered harmful?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Ryan
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment concerning an individual always being offended by some aspect of a religion. Someone will always find an aspect of religions they are not a part of with which they disagree. I believe that there needs to be an increased amount of tolerance for unique aspects of certain religions; however, there does need to be a limit in place so that behavior that is unacceptable to the majority will not occur.
@Jake
I agree with your opinion on the Sharia Law. The code is basically attempting to alter the fundamental values that are the basis of democratic ideals in America. Even though it may go against their religious values to be subjected to the laws set by our government, their laws cannot be utilized since it would make an exception and shatter the fundamental idea of equality under the law and the structure of the legal system.
@ Hannah:
ReplyDeleteI am sure that only non-profit religious organizations receive the tax exemptions. This is legal because if the religious organization qualifies as noniprofit, then the government will have to exempt them from some tax like any other non-religious non-profit organization. What do you exactly mean by “special” considerations?
@ Ryan:
I agree with your reasoning about how most (who am I kidding, 'all') school holidays occur on Christian holidays. But this is legal, at least in our school district, because our district allow students of different faiths to skip school if their religion requires it without a penalty and the missed day counts as a field trip.
This is Jessica Schildt.
ReplyDelete@ Taylor- It is difficult to decide which question comes first, so here goes
What do you mean by evolution? Are you referring to micro or macro evolution?
Also, what is your definition of Intelligent Design (ID)? It is actually completely science-based; there are a great many non-religious believers in Intelligent Design. On that note, it is not reasonable to say that ID should not be presented to students as well as Evolution (I am referring to macro evolution), because both are based purely in science. Lastly, on the point of being close-minded: as a friend of mine says, “that criticism cuts both ways.” You are right, in my opinion- only teaching one side leads to great disparities in learning and is a disadvantage to students. To ensure that students are not “insecure in what they think” and are not simply thinking what they “have been told…to think all their lives,” both positions should be presented equally.
@ Allison- I enjoyed your post I agree with what you wrote about the fact that, with free exercise, it is difficult to draw a definite line.
As I explained above, Intelligent Design (ID) is an alternative theory to (macro) evolution; those who believe in ID do so because they see the ways in which macro evolution cannot accurately explain the whole picture, while ID succeeds in depicting all of it. Also, as I mentioned earlier in my post, the trend of “removal of church from State” is steadily growing, which is due largely to the fact that only one side is presented (macro evolution). While we may not always realize it at first, only teaching this theory has religious consequences- it suggests that there is no room for religion because science is superior. And I must once more state that the point is not bringing religion into public school, but bringing the opposite view to macro evolution (i.e. Intelligent Design) into the curriculum and presenting it alongside macro evolution.
@ Jake- The example of Sharia law in Western societies is a great one, and extremely relevant. It is definitely a problem when laws bred from a theocracy threaten to enter American ideals of religious freedom, and Sharia law most definitely threatens these ideals. It is interesting to me that Britain accepted Sharia law for use in British courts; perhaps this is the result of the growing Muslim population in Britain? Either way, it is something we need to be aware of and watching for, especially as more and more countries turn towards accepting these laws for their citizens.
Laura: I agree with you that as long as no gets hurt we should have the right to choose what religion we wish to follow as well as how and where they express it. I had not heard about the issue with the cemeteries, though, and I find it very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlison: I has occurred to me that many people have different definitions of what a negative impact may be. Something like this definitely makes it trickier to settle disputes without harming others and violating their rights to free exercise. People may think that how they express their religion does not harm those around them, but when there are several people that are harmed by it, it causes an uproar. This may be because those who are harmed may feel that their rights are violated but at the same time, those expressing their religion may feel that their rights are also violated, which can lead to this huge commotion.
@Vaibhav: I love your example on religious wear being allowed in the forms of crosses, but not in the form of turbans. Turbans; however, are more of a distraction to class room like enviornments than small necklace crosses due to size and are unfortunately asociated with terrorism due to the stereotype caused my 9/11. Though the second is a mere stereotype, the first could be argued to affect others, like being a distraction in a classroom environment. This is more based on how it would provoke attention due to being "out of the norm" more than actually being distracting.
ReplyDelete@laura: I also love your example in the Arlington National Cemetery. It is a unique angle to this establishment that isn't as common knowledge.
@Jessica- I think that public schools don’t teach Creationism/Intelligent Design because it is not a secular topic. If teachers had to teach Intelligent Design, they would have to mention all the forms of it to avoid the appearance of favoritism towards one religion. Then, the class would be unreasonably long, and would be classified as a religious class… which would lead to lawsuits, which would lose the school its federal funding.
ReplyDelete@Jake- I was researching the movement to implement the Sharia in western countries as well. I agree with you about this topic- it does violate the very core of American beliefs to have a religious law be used as an instrument of the courts, which are supposed to be impartial and give everyone equal protection.
@Rick- I like your example! I did not know we even had National Christmas Trees.
@Laura- I never thought about the crosses in a cemetery- Great Idea! I have one question: for the people who were already buried and had no living family to provide a choice of symbol, did they dig up the crosses and just put a bland headstone?
@Ashley- great point with the swearing on the bible! I wonder if it is possible to fix, however, given the fact that there is not really something that anyone can swear on that will not offend someone. I suppose we could swear on the flag, but that seems improper… Also, if someone is determined to lie in court, they will do so, regardless of what they swear on.
@ Erin and Laura:
ReplyDeleteIf you have ever gone to a military cemetery like Arlington in Virginia, you will see that soldiers of different faith have headstones that represent their faith. However, people who are not soldiers are probably buried in the religious institution of their choice or cremated. Hope this answers your question.
@ Erin and Ashley:
Only Christians and people who desire to swear on the bible can swear on it. I believe that the court system allows people of different faiths to swear on the religious book of their choice. The real question is, “what do Atheists swear on?”