| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omkara

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Religious freedom means freedom to practice what's generally accepted to be a bona fide religion.
It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion.
Like Ben Stein noted, where does it found in the Constitution that America is an explicitly atheistic nation?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/benstein2.asp
Traditionally, chaplains have ministered to the spiritual needs of soldiers, and they are required to be sensitive to religious diversity.
Here's from the U.S. Army website:
You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:
A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.
Educationally, you must:
Possess a baccalaureate degree of not less than 120 semester hours.
Possess a graduate degree in theological or religious studies, plus have earned at least a total of 72 semester hours in graduate work in these fields of study.
http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/
I think that soldiers who want to evangelize their sectarian faith in an organized way while in active service should be allowed to do so only at the discretion of military commanders, who need to make a judgement call on its effect on overall morale.
I would think that if there were a significant number of complaints from soldiers being harassed or discriminated against, the commanders would act to limit or bar such activity.
If the commanders themselves promote aggressive prosylitizing by a particular sect, there would likely be legal challenges by members of other faith traditions.
However, because there is a compelling public (and/or national) interest in the promotion of nonsectarian faith in God (especially in a battlefield situation) petitions and lawsuits brought forth by atheists would have less legal standing, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
uberscheisse
Joined: 02 Dec 2003 Location: japan is better than korea.
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Religious freedom means freedom to practice what's generally accepted to be a bona fide religion.
It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion.
|
are you sure you want to word it that way?
because what it suggests to me is that your religious freedom is only guaranteed if you're religious. please clarify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Young FRANKenstein

Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Religious freedom means freedom to practice what's generally accepted to be a bona fide religion.
It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion. |
Of course it does. If I'm not free to CHOOSE not to practise a religion (any religion), then how exactly am I free?
Freedom of religion give one the choice of religions as well as the choice of no religion at all, all without penalty or consequence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion. |
Of course it does. If I'm not free to CHOOSE not to practise a religion (any religion), then how exactly am I free? |
He means that people don't have a right to absolute freedom from anything religious. The hearing of a prayer or a church bell doesn't infringe on a person's rights, for example.
The soldier in the op is right though. What he's being subject to is definite discrimination against the non-religious. This one for example:
| Quote: |
| Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
uberscheisse
Joined: 02 Dec 2003 Location: japan is better than korea.
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion. |
Of course it does. If I'm not free to CHOOSE not to practise a religion (any religion), then how exactly am I free? |
He means that people don't have a right to absolute freedom from anything religious. The hearing of a prayer or a church bell doesn't infringe on a person's rights, for example. |
thanks for clearing that up - i was about to jump down his ridiculous clinging-to-a-non-bona-fide-religion throat yet again with the scepter of common sense.
tiresome, digressing thread where i re-state thorough scorn and contempt for sedated cultists ad nauseum averted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| uberscheisse wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion. |
Of course it does. If I'm not free to CHOOSE not to practise a religion (any religion), then how exactly am I free? |
He means that people don't have a right to absolute freedom from anything religious. The hearing of a prayer or a church bell doesn't infringe on a person's rights, for example. |
thanks for clearing that up - i was about to jump down his ridiculous clinging-to-a-non-bona-fide-religion throat yet again with the scepter of common sense. |
No problem. I should add though that I *think* that's the point he was making. It's still possible that I misread and we still have a chance for a tiresome lengthy thread. (knock on wood) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, individuals (and groups) are free not to practice a religion.
But religious freedom protects the right of individuals (and groups) to practice their religion - which often entails preaching to those without religion - in public places, forums, and door-to-door, etc. . .
Of course, when people say "they're not interested" that should be respected, and aggressive tactics are usually bad preaching (and counter-productive.)
The main issue is governmental promotion of sectarian religion.
My positition is that only nonsectarian religious principles should be promoted by government - and the U.S. government has no Constitutional basis for promoting atheistic principles.
Here's the American Civil Liberties Union position on Freedom of Religion-
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Young FRANKenstein

Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| It doesn't mean being free from any trace of religion. |
Of course it does. If I'm not free to CHOOSE not to practise a religion (any religion), then how exactly am I free? |
He means that people don't have a right to absolute freedom from anything religious. The hearing of a prayer or a church bell doesn't infringe on a person's rights, for example. |
If that's what he meant, then I agree.
| Quote: |
The soldier in the op is right though. What he's being subject to is definite discrimination against the non-religious. This one for example:
| Quote: |
| Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. |
|
I remember something similar in elementary school. Two classmates, both Italian, refused to say the Lord's Prayer in the morning after the National Anthem. Made a big stink about it not being part of their religion (don't rightly remember what their religion was). Teacher and prinicipal kicked them out of class each and every morning while the rest of the class did it. That went on for 6 years. I didn't say the Lord's Prayer, either, but I didn't say anything. I just stood there, not bowing my head and not saying anything. I wasn't kicked out, probably because I wasn't in their face about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Omkara

Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is a "non-sectarian religious principle"? Can't get ahold of that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A non-sectarian religious principle would be one which is consistent with the original essential teachings of all revealed scriptures and major religious traditions.
For example: to not unnecessary kill or harm any living being.
Although there are differences in detail (and inevitably some corruption over time) the underlying principles are basically the same with regard to regulating animal slaughter, intoxication, illicit sex, and gambling.
And although there are different names and concepts, the general principle is to glorify the Supreme Person and the various Holy Names of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Until this trial goes forward it could be that the dude is just filing a frivalous lawsuit because he was disciplined for something totally unrelated. Wouldn't be the first time. We wont know until everyone's side is made known. It's like talking to people who have been let go from hogwans. It seems those people NEVER did anything to warrant their getting the sack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Binch Lover
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
A non-sectarian religious principle would be one which is consistent with the original essential teachings of all revealed scriptures and major religious traditions.
For example: to not unnecessary kill or harm any living being.
Although there are differences in detail (and inevitably some corruption over time) the underlying principles are basically the same with regard to regulating animal slaughter, intoxication, illicit sex, and gambling.
And although there are different names and concepts, the general principle is to glorify the Supreme Person and the various Holy Names of God. |
Why do you assume that these principles come from scriptures or religion? Not killing others is a principle adhered to by societies all around the world, unconnected by religious ties. "Revealed scripture" tells us nothing since it is usually so contradictory. For example, the bible teaches us not to kill and also that killing is ok in different parts. If people know which parts to abide by and which parts to disregard, then this implies that people have inherent morality unrelated to religion.
With reference to the OP, I completely agree that Western society usually tolerates the practicing of different religions. It seems that in the USA, however, people are not free to be openly atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|