Religious Freedom - Explain it to me like I'm 5

[Mars]

Just now, Gray said:

All C-level employees are under the magnifying glass. They are face of the companies they work for. Having religious beliefs has never given anyone blanket protections to express opinions based on those beliefs without consequence, right?

he participated in a vote.  he didn't express religious belief.  he made no public statement.  he called no attention to himself.  he donated to a cause.  the only way they found out, as i recall, was a FOIA request on the donors.  if it weren't for the vindictive attitude on the part of the one employee who found out and made the actions known, he'd likely still be there.

i am not ok with that kind of consequence for participating in the democratic process.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, gclayjr said:

Those who claim that we are free to practice our religion base it upon 2 concepts 

1) you only get ostracized, lose you job and business, but not go to jail. I guess you are free as long as the punished doesn't include jail time (Although there is a clerk in Kentucky that might not agree)

2) you can still say what you want (as long as you don't endorse a political candidate) inside the closed doors of you church, but don't dare take it outside.

 

Do I guess if you at least don't go to Jail, and can still say what you believe as long as it is only inside of closed church doors, then I guess we still have   freedom of  religion

 

Regards,

George Clay

 

The issue of public prayer (and school prayer specifically) isn't quite at clear-cut as we might thing.  Illustrating this point is the case of a school district that was sued to stop public prayers before their football games back in 2000:

Sante Fe vs. Jane Doe

 

Quote

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court . It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.

So, just based off that summary, would you say this was an example of a violation of "religious freedom"? 

Certainly, when the case got to the Supreme Court, the dissenting judges thought so:

Quote

 

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision.

A dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. His dissent asserted that the majority opinion "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life". His material objections were, first that the policy on which the Court has now ruled had not yet been put in to practice. "[T]he question is not whether the district's policy may be applied in violation of the Establishment Clause, but whether it inevitably will be." Second, Rehnquist also stated that the speech in question would be private, chosen and delivered by the speaker, rather than public, school-sponsored speech.

 

So now what do you think?  Even more convinced this was a violation of "religious freedom"?

But one more thing.  The suit was filed by a Mormon family and a Catholic family!

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by cinepro

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Mars said:

he participated in a vote.  he didn't express religious belief.  he made no public statement.  he called no attention to himself.  he donated to a cause.  the only way they found out, as i recall, was a FOIA request on the donors.  if it weren't for the vindictive attitude on the part of the one employee who found out and made the actions known, he'd likely still be there.

i am not ok with that kind of consequence for participating in the democratic process.

Okay, what if he supported a proposition to take away voting rights for women? What if it was based on his deeply held religious beliefs? And what if it became known that he supported that cause? What company would fail to terminate him for that?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Gray

[Mars]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Okay, what if he supported a proposition to take away voting rights for women? What if it was based on his deeply held religious beliefs? And what if it became known that he supported that cause? What company would fail to terminate him for that?

do you think timing matters?  would it be fair to be pissed off at someone who was voting against women's suffrage in february, 1913?

or someone who felt that persons of african lineage did not deserve abolition in 1787?

or a supreme court justice who dissented in november 2014 re obergefell v hodges?

i do.  i think timing matters.  if someone today was working to limit women's access to abortion (and i'm no fan of abortion) or trying to say that brown people who speak another language need to be rounded up and booted out of 'murica, then i would have a problem.  and i think the company would have more justifiable grounds to bend to public opinion.  you can talk all you want, just not as C-level of my company - sort of a thing.

i'm not even saying the company should not have the power to do what they did.  i do think it was wrong to punish a guy for voting, even if it was with his dollars.

also, my overall point i am trying to make is that the whole affair can be construed as evidence that you're not even allowed to privately believe something.  those who enter the conversation with the idea in mind that gay marriage isn't even something to discuss or consider as wrong will see opposition to it in the same vein as all other kinds of discrimination.  they'll just hear it as the same kind of 40s jim crow rhetoric that condemned black folks to second class citizenship.  if i can't prevail upon you to see it any other way, then i suppose that's the end of our conversation.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Mars

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

LOL a nose is only unrighteous when it sticks itself where the fist is already exercising!

I have a cold right now so my nose feels really unrighteous.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It is, liberal secularists are trying to transform our nation to an Atheist dictatorship, and are trying to replace Bibles with Science textbooks. 

They are also trying to make everyone gay. 

It worked on me.  

What are you doing tonight?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Okay, what if he supported a proposition to take away voting rights for women? What if it was based on his deeply held religious beliefs? And what if it became known that he supported that cause? What company would fail to terminate him for that?

It is the old problem Toqueville found. He was impressed with America but noted that unlike in Europe once a majority is entrenched in a position dissent is social and possibly economic suicide. The counterpoint was that in a more class-oriented society there are other forces outside the overwhelming majority as a balance.

We are nowhere near that bad yet.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Mars said:

do you think timing matters?  would it be fair to be pissed off at someone who was voting against women's suffrage in february, 1913?

or someone who felt that persons of african lineage did not deserve abolition in 1787?

or a supreme court justice who dissented in november 2014 re obergefell v hodges?

i do.  i think timing matters.  if someone today was working to limit women's access to abortion (and i'm no fan of abortion) or trying to say that brown people who speak another language need to be rounded up and booted out of 'murica, then i would have a problem.  and i think the company would have more justifiable grounds to bend to public opinion.  you can talk all you want, just not as C-level of my company - sort of a thing.

i'm not even saying the company should not have the power to do what they did.  i do think it was wrong to punish a guy for voting, even if it was with his dollars.

also, my overall point i am trying to make is that the whole affair can be construed as evidence that you're not even allowed to privately believe something.  those who enter the conversation with the idea in mind that gay marriage isn't even something to discuss or consider as wrong will see opposition to it in the same vein as all other kinds of discrimination.  they'll just hear it as the same kind of 40s jim crow rhetoric that condemned black folks to second class citizenship.  if i can't prevail upon you to see it any other way, then i suppose that's the end of our conversation.

I pretty much agree, but that's the times we live in.  This is not a government action.  It was a company who thought their best plan of action was to see him leave otherwise the backlash would be too great. 

[Mars]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I pretty much agree, but that's the times we live in.  This is not a government action.  It was a company who thought their best plan of action was to see him leave otherwise the backlash would be too great. 

agreed.  thems the breaks.  i don't agree with it, but i accept it as reality.

[Ahab]

Like you're 5:

Religious freedom is how much freedom you have to live your religion.

Even as a 5 year old you can expect some people to try to put limits on how much you can do with your religion, so when people try to do that just remember what I told you.

[gclayjr]

Walden,

It may be that the specific examples that I selected referred to coaches being fired for praying with fellow believers who desired to invoke God's blessing on their sports activity. It was never to be with the general sports team or any student that didn't desire to be with him when praying. It used to be that most town meetings started with prayer, but this has been mostly eliminated do to law suits from "Freedom From Religion" groups.

 

You are actually making my point while siding with the Babylonians. According to you,  It is not suppressing religion to tell people that they must shut up in the public space, and can only express their beliefs within the locked doors of Church. So since this is your point of view removing religion from the public spaces does not constitute restricting religion.

However, just because you assert it doesn't make it true!

 

Regards,

George Clay

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, gclayjr said:

Walden,

It may be that the specific examples that I selected referred to coaches being fired for praying with fellow believers who desired to invoke God's blessing on their sports activity. It was never to be with the general sports team or any student that didn't desire to be with him when praying. It used to be that most town meetings started with prayer, but this has been mostly eliminated ...

 

Regards,

George Clay

Just like nobody feels obligated to buy the bosses daughter's Girl Scout cookies. 

The arguments against PUBLIC school prayers are well established for a reason and religious people should be very grateful we have them.  

Pick something else to make an argument about religious freedom. 

[sjdawg]

8 hours ago, Mars said:

he participated in a vote.  he didn't express religious belief.  he made no public statement.  he called no attention to himself.  he donated to a cause.  the only way they found out, as i recall, was a FOIA request on the donors.  if it weren't for the vindictive attitude on the part of the one employee who found out and made the actions known, he'd likely still be there.

i am not ok with that kind of consequence for participating in the democratic process.

It may have been vindictive (In my opinion so was trying to repeal gay marriage rights) but I don't think it violated any freedom of religion laws.   He is still legally able to worship as he sees fit.   Customers have a right to voice their opinions as well.  It doesn't mean either is correct or fair but both are legal.

[Mars]

28 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

It may have been vindictive (In my opinion so was trying to repeal gay marriage rights) but I don't think it violated any freedom of religion laws.   He is still legally able to worship as he sees fit.   Customers have a right to voice their opinions as well.  It doesn't mean either is correct or fair but both are legal.

oy veh.

'repeal gay marriage rights'.  the whole process culminating in the supreme court decision on prop 8 was part of the legal process of us deciding as a country whether or not gays were a protected class and as such could be afforded that kind of right.  i am constantly surprised and even a bit annoyed that people who are pro gay marriage see any opposition to it as a removal or restriction of their rights.  context matters.  at the time, those rights were being debated and the matter wasn't settled.  please don't rearrange the discussion.

customers DO have a right to voice their opinion.  i didn't argue otherwise.  i'm not arguing that it was illegal.  but these employees weren't customers.  and they had a good 6 years of time to draw upon to bolster their argument that eich wasn't deserving of his position based on his behavior.  but they had nothing.  so they went after his opinion.  total BS.

i do think it was a tiny step toward curtailing religious freedom.  i am not trying to argue that it's some cut and dried instance of some poor guy's rights being totally trampled upon.  if one is of a mind that things are trending toward curtailing religious freedom, i think this instance illustrates how public opinion can provide fertile ground for laws to change.

you disagree.  but you asked.  and i explained.  if you want to just pick a fight and list reasons why it couldn't happen, then go back and re-edit your thread title and say "here's all the reasons why i think religious freedom won't be curtailed" rather than a faux interest of wanting to understand.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Mars

[sjdawg]

16 minutes ago, Mars said:

oy veh.

'repeal gay marriage rights'.  the whole process culminating in the supreme court decision on prop 8 was part of the legal process of us deciding as a country whether or not gays were a protected class and as such could be afforded that kind of right.  i am constantly surprised and even a bit annoyed that people who are pro gay marriage see any opposition to it as a removal or restriction of their rights.  context matters.  at the time, those rights were being debated and the matter wasn't settled.  please don't rearrange the discussion.

customers DO have a right to voice their opinion.  i didn't argue otherwise.  i'm not arguing that it was illegal.  but these employees weren't customers.  and they had a good 6 years of time to draw upon to bolster their argument that eich wasn't deserving of his position based on his behavior.  but they had nothing.  so they went after his opinion.  total BS.

i do think it was a tiny step toward curtailing religious freedom.  i am not trying to argue that it's some cut and dried instance of some poor guy's rights being totally trampled upon.  if one is of a mind that things are trending toward curtailing religious freedom, i think this instance illustrates how public opinion can provide fertile ground for laws to change.

you disagree.  but you asked.  and i explained.  if you want to just pick a fight and list reasons why it couldn't happen, then go back and re-edit your thread title and say "here's all the reasons why i think religious freedom won't be curtailed" rather than a faux interest of wanting to understand.

Picking a fight?  Where did I pick a fight?  

[Mars]

that was probably too harsh a characterization of your position.  i retract that.  let's try: "looking to disagree"

it seems like you raised the banner of "explain this to me because i want to know how the other side thinks" but then when an explanation came, you just wanted to disagree rather than acknowledge that you had understood the position.  if you don't think erosion of religious liberty is happening or could happen, then just say so.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Mars

[sjdawg]

19 minutes ago, Mars said:

oy veh.

'repeal gay marriage rights'.  the whole process culminating in the supreme court decision on prop 8 was part of the legal process of us deciding as a country whether or not gays were a protected class and as such could be afforded that kind of right.  i am constantly surprised and even a bit annoyed that people who are pro gay marriage see any opposition to it as a removal or restriction of their rights.  context matters.  at the time, those rights were being debated and the matter wasn't settled.  please don't rearrange the discussion.

customers DO have a right to voice their opinion.  i didn't argue otherwise.  i'm not arguing that it was illegal.  but these employees weren't customers.  and they had a good 6 years of time to draw upon to bolster their argument that eich wasn't deserving of his position based on his behavior.  but they had nothing.  so they went after his opinion.  total BS.

i do think it was a tiny step toward curtailing religious freedom.  i am not trying to argue that it's some cut and dried instance of some poor guy's rights being totally trampled upon.  if one is of a mind that things are trending toward curtailing religious freedom, i think this instance illustrates how public opinion can provide fertile ground for laws to change.

you disagree.  but you asked.  and i explained.  if you want to just pick a fight and list reasons why it couldn't happen, then go back and re-edit your thread title and say "here's all the reasons why i think religious freedom won't be curtailed" rather than a faux interest of wanting to understand.

Do I misunderstand the prop 8 debate?  It is certainly possible as I didn't follow it at the time.  I don't recall much news about it in Canada.

My understanding is gay marriage was legal in California and then based on prop 8 it was again made illegal.   If that is true "repeal" seems like a reasonable word.  If I have it backwards I'm happy to be corrected and choose a more appropriate word.

Either way I don't follow how the existence of gay marriage reduces religious freedom.   If someone is forcing religions to perform gay marriages that is a huge infringement on religious freedom but to my knowledge that isn't happening.

Sorry to derail my own thread.  Either way your example of Eich is valid.   I'm not sure I agree that it was a step towards curtailing religious freedom but it does raise an interesting problem for executives.  Under what circumstance should they promote personal causes or controversial issues?   What are the consequences and are the consequences reasonable and predictable?   What is the line between professional and personal life?

 

[Mars]

3 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Do I misunderstand the prop 8 debate?  It is certainly possible as I didn't follow it at the time.  I don't recall much news about it in Canada.

My understanding is gay marriage was legal in California and then based on prop 8 it was again made illegal.   If that is true "repeal" seems like a reasonable word.  If I have it backwards I'm happy to be corrected and choose a more appropriate word.

Either way I don't follow how the existence of gay marriage reduces religious freedom.   If someone is forcing religions to perform gay marriages that is a huge infringement on religious freedom but to my knowledge that isn't happening.

Sorry to derail my own thread.  Either way your example of Eich is valid.   I'm not sure I agree that it was a step towards curtailing religious freedom but it does raise an interesting problem for executives.  Under what circumstance should they promote personal causes or controversial issues?   What are the consequences and are the consequences reasonable and predictable?   What is the line between professional and personal life?

 

the back and forth in california on gay rights and gay marriage started well before 2004 when gay marriage licenses started being handed out.  i heard stuff going on as a teenager in the late nineties.  i consider the supreme court decision as final and everything building up to that as part of the legal process.  now that the supreme court has ruled, it's the law of the land.  anyone wanting to overturn a supreme court decision which grants rights can reasonably be described as attempting to overturn those rights.

as for the rest of your post, i think that's a fair opinion to have.  i don't think the mere existence of gay marriage erodes rights of the religious, either.  i think some people see new policies and laws forthcoming that reflect public opinion and that there is risk that religious freedom could be curtailed.  but yes, as of yet, my life goes on very much the same as it did prior to obergefell vs hodges.

those questions at the bottom?  beats me.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Mars

[sjdawg]

1 minute ago, Mars said:

the back and forth in california on gay rights and gay marriage started well before 2004 when gay marriage licenses started being handed out.  i heard stuff going on as a teenager in the late nineties.

I was certainly oblivious to any discussions/controversies at this time.   I was pretty wrapped up in myself.

[sjdawg]

6 hours ago, Mars said:

that was probably too harsh a characterization of your position.  i retract that.  let's try: "looking to disagree"

it seems like you raised the banner of "explain this to me because i want to know how the other side thinks" but then when an explanation came, you just wanted to disagree rather than acknowledge that you had understood the position.  if you don't think erosion of religious liberty is happening or could happen, then just say so.

I'm not sure if it is happening or not. I was pretty clear in the OP that I don't see it happening.   I hear a lot of talk about it however I disagree that the examples provided are evidence of it.   I'd like to think we all remain very free to worship and believe according to our own beliefs.  

Edited March 1, 2016 by sjdawg

[Mars]

7 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I was certainly oblivious to any discussions/controversies at this time.   I was pretty wrapped up in myself.

happens to the best of us!

[gclayjr]

mtomm, others,

 

Quote

Pick something else to make an argument about religious freedom. 

I don't agree with you, but this stuff is so pervasive, and has been sneaking up on us in so many ways, I still am amazed that anybody can deny it. So for my next examples of religion being being removed from public and only allowed in the private sphere. How about removals of religious symbols from public display to include Christmas creches s from public parks. to telling employees not to say Merry Christmas, to removing 10 commandments from courthouses to a long dispute regarding a veterans memorial on a mountain in Soledad California, because it looked like a big cross and offended Atheists.

 

Or are you going to continue to make my argument in your objections by blowing this off also as no big deal. When will you see that piece by piece, step by step, it has already happened?.. and yes it iS a big deal.

 

 

Regards,

 

George Clay

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Why should my tax dollars go to support overtly religious ceremonies?

 

[gclayjr]

theSometimesSaint,

 

Quote

Why should my tax dollars go to support overtly religious ceremonies?

Typical smoke screen!

 Do you not understand the concept of "Sunk Costs". For example, for the Marble 10 commandments being removed from courthouses. Any costs for Making those monuments were paid out years ago. The only current tax dollars being spent is being spent in REMOVING them!. As far as the Soledad Veterans Memorial dispute, any tax dollars being spent maintaining it was trivial, and huge amounts of tax dollars have been spent both in legal fees and in efforts to remove the cross. 

 

As far as Christmas Creches are concerned, there are many Churches and religious organizations willing to pay for them, but that doesn't matter

 

SO again your arguement is nothing more than a deceptive smoke screen. THis is another effort to remove religious expression from the public sphere, not an effort to save tax payer money!

 

Regards,

George Clay

[thesometimesaint]

You still didn't answer my question. We are a secular nation. While should my tax dollars go to support overtly religious ceremonies?