Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[Zakuska]

Sophistry.

 

SEE Iconoclasts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm

 

Hardly a fallacious argument.  If one Religious Symbol must go they all must go.

 

 

We have to be fair.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[Kenngo1969]

If it is on private property; No problem. If it is on public property; keep religion out of it.

OK, but even this simple rule can be fraught with complications very quickly: What about symbols on private property that can be seen on public property/ Do we ban such symbols the nanosecond someone becomes offended? Edited July 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Zakuska]

The Statue of Liberty is on Public Land. It's up keep also paid for by the tax payers.  Its also the Roman Goddess Libertas.

 

The statue is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. A broken chain lies at her feet. The statue is an icon of freedom and of the United States, and was a welcoming sight to immigrants arriving from abroad.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

 

We should send her back... post haste in the name of Political Correctness.

 

To top it off she's covered with Masonic Symbols.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

The Statue of Liberty is on Public Land. It's up keep also paid for by the tax payers.  Its also the Roman Goddess Libertas.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

 

We should send her back... post haste in the name of Political Correctness.

 

She would just sneak back in over the Rio Grande and apply for a drivers license and food stamps.

Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG

[CV75]

Still a school sponsored event. Government institutions can't promote a religion.

Yes and yes, but those principles aren't what constitute the abuse at work against the school district.

Edited July 28, 2015 by CV75

[Gray]

Yes and yes, but those principles aren't what constitute the abuse at work against the school district.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? 

[CV75]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? 

What is not clear?

Edited July 28, 2015 by CV75

[ERayR]

She would just sneak back in over the Rio Grande and apply for a drivers license and food stamps.

 

And be back before the escorts were.

[Gray]

What is not clear?

 

What abuse is the school district suffering? 

[CV75]

What abuse is the school district suffering? 

Have you Googled and read the article(s) on the Missouri school? The case is an example of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, and goes back 2-3 years. A pattern of undermining the school district's rights to allow prayer under give conditions, which it met. But the judge's decision was based on the argument that the plaintiff found deciding whether to voluntarily attend an assembly knowing that a prayer would be offered "difficult." A previous case on the same kind of complaint filed by the same plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice, so they kept at it until they got a judge they liked.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Hardly a fallacious argument.  If one Religious Symbol must go they all must go.

 

 

We have to be fair.

 

We have to be fair, if one Religion is promoted, then all religions should be promoted (including Atheism) by the gov. 

 

Either all or none. 

 

PS ancient Roman religions no longer exist 

Edited July 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[provoman]

Hardly a fallacious argument.  If one Religious Symbol must go they all must go.

 

 

We have to be fair.

 

It is as though you are unconerned with how flawed your position is.  A statue is a statue. A statue is a religious symbol when the Government forces the religious symbology of the statue. 

[provoman]

Have you Googled and read the article(s) on the Missouri school? The case is an example of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, and goes back 2-3 years. A pattern of undermining the school district's rights to allow prayer under give conditions, which it met. But the judge's decision was based on the argument that the plaintiff found deciding whether to voluntarily attend an assembly knowing that a prayer would be offered "difficult." A previous case on the same kind of complaint filed by the same plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice, so they kept at it until they got a judge they liked.

 

Whose religious freedom was trampled?

[provoman]

Have you Googled and read the article(s) on the Missouri school? The case is an example of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, and goes back 2-3 years. A pattern of undermining the school district's rights to allow prayer under give conditions, which it met. But the judge's decision was based on the argument that the plaintiff found deciding whether to voluntarily attend an assembly knowing that a prayer would be offered "difficult." A previous case on the same kind of complaint filed by the same plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice, so they kept at it until they got a judge they liked.

One of the students to filed the suit, stated she is a Non-demoninational Christian. She also cited the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law"; her opposition, as Christian, was school violating the Constitutional rights of students. Whose religious freedom is being trampled here?

[Gray]

Have you Googled and read the article(s) on the Missouri school? The case is an example of religious freedom being trampled or threatened, and goes back 2-3 years. A pattern of undermining the school district's rights to allow prayer under give conditions, which it met. But the judge's decision was based on the argument that the plaintiff found deciding whether to voluntarily attend an assembly knowing that a prayer would be offered "difficult." A previous case on the same kind of complaint filed by the same plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice, so they kept at it until they got a judge they liked.

 

I'm not sure leading a prayer at a public school function is a religious right. 

[Zakuska]

We have to be fair, if one Religion is promoted, then all religions should be promoted (including Atheism) by the gov. 

 

Either all or none. 

 

PS ancient Roman religions no longer exist 

 

Catholicism exists and all it is is more modern version of the Ancient Roman Religiions.  The Pope still wears the Same Robes that the Pagan Priests wore.

 

Nice try.

[Zakuska]

Intresting read and pertinent to the discussion:

 

LINES CROSSED: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. HAS THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TRAMPLED ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE?

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg73614/html/CHRG-112hhrg73614.htm

 

Goverment hearing on the Obama Care  mandate for contraception coverage. I especially liked the Parable of the Deli.

 

 

STATEMENT OF BISHOP WILLIAM E. LORI

Bishop Lori. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to
testify today.
For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's
call it the parable of the kosher deli. Once upon a time, a new
law was proposed so that any business that serves food must
serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering
halls attached to synagogues since they serve mostly members of
that synagog, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the
mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community, whose members run kosher
delis and many other restaurants and groceries besides,
expresses its outrage at the new government mandate, and they
are joined by others who have no problem with eating pork, not
just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths,
because these others recognize the threat to the principle of
religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact
of the damage to that principle. They know that if the mandate
stands, they might be the next ones to be forced under the
threat of government sanction to violate their most deeply held
beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, ``But
pork is good for you.'' Other supporters add, ``So many Jews
eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times.''
Still others say, ``Those orthodox are just trying to impose
their beliefs on everyone else.''
But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public
debate, because people widely recognize the following points.
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is
good for you, that is not the question posed by the nationwide
pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates this question;
whether people who believe, even if they believe in error, that
pork is not good for you should be forced by government to
serve pork within their very own institutions. In a Nation
committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of
course, is no.
Second, the fact that some Jews eat pork is simply
irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not, and they do
not do so out of their most deeply held religious convictions.
Does the fact that large majorities in society, even large
majorities within protesting religious communities, the fact
that they reject a particular religious belief, does that make
it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of
the dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority
belief with coercive power? In a Nation committed to religious
liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their
beliefs on others has it exactly backward. Again, the question
generated by government mandate is whether the government will
impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting
Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition on the freedom
of those who want to eat pork; that is, they are subject to no
government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and
pork is ubiquitous and cheap and available at the overwhelming
majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork
producers and retailers, even the government itself, are so
eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give it
a way for free.
In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come
to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and, if
refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In
a Nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the
answer is no. So in our hypothetical story, because the
hypothetical nation is committed to religious liberty and
diversity, these arguments carry the day.
Now, in response, those proposing the new law claim to hear
and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer
them a new accommodation. You are free to call yourself a
kosher deli. You are free not to place ham sandwiches on your
menu. You are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich
and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force
your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and
offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all your customers
free of charge, and when you get your monthly bill from your
meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the free ham
sandwiches your customers may have accepted, and you will be
required to pay the bill.
Now, some who supported the deli owners initially began to
celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn't need to be on the
menu and didn't need to be prepared or served by the deli
itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling
things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for
the ham sandwiches; second, many of the kosher delis' meat
suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering,
preparing or serving pork to anyone; and, third, there are many
kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate
to prepare, offer and serve ham sandwiches still falls on them.
Well, the story has a happy ending. The government
recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher
deli and demand a ham sandwich, that it is beyond absurd for
that private demand to be backed up with the coercive power of
the State, and downright surreal to apply this coercive power,
when the government can get the same sandwich cheaply or even
free just a few doors down.
The question before the U.S. Government right now is
whether the story of our own church institutions that serve the
public and that are threatened by the HHS mandate will end
happily, too. Will our Nation continue to be----
Chairman Issa. Bishop Lori, could you wrap up? I will ask
for 15 additional seconds.
Bishop Lori. Thank you.
Will our Nation continue to be one committed to religious
liberty and diversity? We urge in the strongest possible terms
that the answer must be yes. We urge you in the strongest
possible terms to answer in the same way.
Thank you for your attention.
Chairman Issa. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Lori follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3614.030

Chairman Issa. I will note for the record that witnesses
swore or affirmed, depending upon their faith.
With that, we go to Reverend Harrison.

[thesometimesaint]

You don't have the right to impose your religion on others.

[KevinG]

The idea that any mention of non-specific deity in the public square is government establishing religion, but silencing that mention is not somehow impeding the free exercise of religion is strained.

 

But law-fare is being used by militant atheism to impose their idea of a god free society upon others in any and all public forums.  Community standards be damned.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Catholicism exists and all it is is more modern version of the Ancient Roman Religiions.  The Pope still wears the Same Robes that the Pagan Priests wore.

 

Nice try.

 

LOL so Catholics worship Zeus? Just a desperate response. 

 

What? Is Christianity an ancient Roman religion too? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbxxM6swCAU

[Zakuska]

 

LOL so Catholics worship Zeus? Just a desperate response. 

 

What? Is Christianity an ancient Roman religion too? 

 

<snip>

 

Yes I see your response IS desperate indeed.

 

Cathloicism and the Popecy is an Ancient Roman Religiion.

 

You know when Constatine took all religions Pagan and Christian alike and came up with the one State religion.

 

Why do you think Christians celebrate Christmas in December? Not because its Jesus' real Birthday.

 

But because its a Roman Holiday known as Saturnalia that they appropriated.

 

 

You know very little of Christian History I see.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

You know very little of Christian History I see.

 

 

LOL what you are saying it totally irrelevant, the Catholic church does not believe in the ancient Roman gods, the catholic church doesn't not believe the statue of liberty is a Goddess, nobody believes that. 

 

The ancient Roman religions no longer exist. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

LOL what you are saying it totally irrelevant, the Catholic church does not believe in the ancient Roman gods, the catholic church doesn't not believe the statue of liberty is a Goddess, nobody believes that. 

 

The ancient Roman religions no longer exist. 

Irrelevant?  Not in the Least.

 

The Statue of Liberty was fashioned after the Roman Godess Libertas.  Thats according to the Architect himself.  It doesn't matter what people think now and what she has come to represent.  When she was placed atop her pedastool she was a Roman Godess placed to represent Liberty and to watch over the people.

 

Here have a History lesson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas

 

She even had her own Coinage:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/RSC_0004a.6.jpg/300px-RSC_0004a.6.jpg

Edited July 29, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

LOL what you are saying it totally irrelevant, the Catholic church does not believe in the ancient Roman gods, the catholic church doesn't not believe the statue of liberty is a Goddess, nobody believes that. 

 

The ancient Roman religions no longer exist. 

 

Please back this up with peer reviewed articles.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Please back this up with peer reviewed articles.

 

There is no complicated stuff involved, there is no physics.