I joined here when I was an atheist, but came back to faith last year. That said, even when I was an atheist, I liked knowing that I live in a country where there exists religious freedom. And the freedom to not believe, if one so chooses.
Most here are atheists, but anyone can chime in, if they like ...do you feel that religious freedom is a good thing? (if you live in a country where that religious freedom doesn't supersede secular laws) Religious freedom should never trample over our secular government or laws. Theists who want their beliefs to be intertwined with government matters, are abusing their religious 'freedoms.'
Just curious as to how you view religious freedom?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Deidre, you gained my utmost respect at the " Theists who want their beliefs to be intertwined with government matters, are abusing their religious 'freedoms.'" part. You are unlike most of the theists that appear here, and I applaud you for that. As for religious freedoms, so long as they do not impede the government or advancement, people should be free to believe(or not) as they wish.
Thanks for that, and agree with you. If we look at the middle east, where much of it is governed by Islam, where Islam is viewed as a political system as much as it is a religion, that is just dangerous. The same thing would happen with Christianity or any other faith system if it was the governing 'force' in say, the US. I happen to believe that faith/beliefs/religion/whatever is a personal thing, and as part of my faith, I could share my love for God with someone else, but that is also a personal thing. And keeping it separate from the state, is the right way. Appreciate your reply.
It would be a disaster is thing indeed, and I'm not saying that just for being atheist. I've always valued people's freedom. It's one of the few things that's kept countries like the U.S afloat, and one reason why Russia is suffering.
One of Russia's major problems is that it still contains a very(but impactful) few archaic religious clauses in its legal system. Nothing like the middle East, but enough to be restrictive. Indeed, keeping religion sperate from state is paramount.
https://ffrf.org/
https://www.aclu.org/your-right-religious-freedom
That's how I feel about it!
Always good to have a refresher ^^
I like that.
Furthermore...
No prayer in schools.
No ten commandments in the courts.
No requirement to swear on the bible to testify.
Teach evolution and real science.
No 'God Bless America' at baseball games.
No mandatory prayer before government functions.
Get rid of "in god we trust" on our currency.
No government holiday for christmas and other religious holidays.
A myriad of things to change back to what the Constitution intended.
That being said, government should not interfere in religious functions.
However, I also support all of what my has listed above.
I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. Baseball games, however, are not run by the government; they are run by corporations. Therefore, to ban 'God Bless America' at baseball games would be an infringement upon the freedom of religion, upon the free market, and it might reduce profits. The phrase is not an attempt at conversion, but it is rather a way of expressing goodwill, and, coming from a corporation, the phrase is something of an appeal to its mass customers, so if I were an atheist, I wouldn't be worried about it.
No baseball games are a public service entertainment and fall under the same governmental scrutiny as discrimination by denying services based on race, religion, etc. It isn't an act of goodwill. It's a declaration of obedience to a religion. It states emphatically that you aren't American, nor a patriot unless you believe in god. It's a slap in the face of the Constitution.
M. V. Reeves- "I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. Baseball games, however, are not run by the government"
Yeah but sports stadiums are typically paid for by tax dollars. So now we get to see how serious you are about the separation of church and state.
Public parks and sports stadia are both lands paid for by tax dollars. If a land is paid for by tax dollars, then the freedom of speech is protected therein. Therefore, just as free speech is protected in public parks, so too need it be protected in sports stadia.
Now we can wave goodbye to your "a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲ separation of church and state". Was fun while it lasted!
You are correct, but you need not reduce your argument to trite wordplay. I unintentionally misrepresented the nature of my position, an I therefore redact my initial claim regarding the absolute separation of church and state. I rather claim to believe that the State ought neither to sponsor a religion, nor to neither physically nor legally obligate its subjects to adhere to a religion. That said, our two intentions in the use of 'absolute' vary. I think that you will find my refreshed wording to remain supported by much of what I have said already. So yes, "we can wave goodbye" to such a notion as absolute separation. It has already been claimed that it is Constitutional to enforce such an absolute separation of church and state. I would posit that not only is this an unsound conclusion, but that it is fundamentally illogical to reconcile the idea of nontolerance for discrimination with the idea of absolute separation of church from state. First, note that a church and a state are both bodies of people. You can find these definitions in a large number of dictionaries available today: which you use is up to you. Second, consider that, per the anti-discrimination legislation held so highly today, a person of any religion may hold presidential office. If a person of a church may be president, and the president comprises a part of the state, then to separate the church from the state absolutely would necessitate to discriminate against that candidate by religion. I do not believe that it is moral to discriminate by religion, so I find it illogical to desire to absolutely separate church and state.
Freedom of speech does not apply here. Also, a public park is quite different than a sports venue. 1) A public park doesn't have a scheduled demand that everyone stand up and sing a song of acknowledgement to a god.
mykcob4:
First, I need to make sure that we're still talking about the same thing, as this thread is becoming very jumbled. If you are still referring to a demand situation in which compliance is physically forced, then I agree, that it should be illegal. Luckily, it already is, as every means of physically enforced compliance infringes upon our civil rights to do and move as we please. If we have been talking about the same general situation, in which forced compliance is very unlikely to occur, but in which a demand is made, then I would like to know how you drew the conclusion that "freedom of speech does not apply here." Even a "demand" is nothing more than an instance of speech. Unless a radical theist decides, as it seems does rarely happen, to take action and force compliance, any such demand is therefore protected by our civil right to free speech. Moreover, as mere speech, it does not infringe upon your own civil rights, as long as it does not constitute extreme and personal slander.
That's true, but it doesn't actually matter because civil rights laws apply.
mykcob4:
Your reply was posted to Nyarlathotep's comment. Did it address him, or me?
@M. V. Reeves
Him. I know this format is sometimes confusing. It's why I got Freeslave's comments mixed up with yours.
@ mykcob - Agree. Separation of church and state was designed to protect religious people as much as the state, if they only knew that. lol
When I click 'reply' under someone's post, it doesn't add my post under theirs...hmmm...maybe I'm doing something wrong?
The system is kind of messed up. It's not your fault. Sometimes it is very hard to what is a response to what.
Just as civil-rights laws prevent religions form subjecting people to them. Combine separation of church and state with civil rights laws, and what myk says applies.
No, you aren't doing anything wrong. Practical uses the @ and the name he has targeted his reply to alleviate confusion.
A.
"No baseball games are a public service entertainment and fall under the same governmental scrutiny as discrimination by denying services based on race, religion, etc." - mykcob4
The use of the phrase, 'God Bless America,' does not constitute the denial of service. Since it is the responsibility of the individual who is denied services to file suit, if no denial of service occurs, then the government does not become involved in the baseball game. Therefore, the government does not promote the use of the phrase; it merely tolerates it, as you suggest it ought to do, in the absence of what is otherwise illegal activity.
B.
"[The use of the phrase, 'God bless America' at baseball games] isn't an act of goodwill. It's a declaration of obedience to a religion." - mykcob4
"Obedience to a religion" by whom? If you mean to say that the use of the phrase constitutes a declaration of obedience by a group of people that includes yourself to a religion, then I must ask you how it does so without using any pronouns. If you rather mean that the phrase is a declaration of obedience to religion by the declarer, then the use of the phrase is protected as free speech. Moreover, the idea that an adult individual alone can speak for him own beliefs, and that none other can speak for him in this regard, is integral to every Western system of law of which I am aware, and, as I therefore induce, probably to every system of law practiced today. Therefore, the words of another cannot be construed as accounting for yourself unless you yourself consent that it be so.
C.
"[The use of the phrase, 'God bless America' at baseball games] states emphatically that you aren't American, nor a patriot unless you believe in god." - mykcob4
In what way does the phrase do that, exactly? By definition, your use of the word "emphatically" means that the phrase in question should have a distinguishing characteristic that directly states or undeniably implies "that you aren't American, nor a patriot unless you believe in god." So I ask again: can you support that claim?
D. -----
Disliking something is different from meaning that it should be seen as immoral or illegal; plenty of people dislike working and paying taxes, but both remain a legal, moral, integrated part of many of our lives for reasons that are good because they are logical: we need to work to make money, which, in modernity, can provide for survival; we pay taxes, again, to support the way of life that we choose, and, if nothing else, to create (potentially few) government jobs to help others to survive in the same way. Therefore, though the use of a religious phrase in a public place like a baseball game may offend you personally, they are protected by free speech in the absence of discrimination.
Actually, there have been suits and every single case so far the judgement is that "god bless America" violates human rights.
If I had a store open to the public and I required everyone that made a purchase to say, "god is great", that is a violation of and individuals rights.
the fact is that the phrase infers that if you are not a christian, then you are neither a patriot or a true American.
https://books.google.com/books?id=H0ObMag1aZMC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=law...
http://www.nyclu.org/news/yankees-settle-%E2%80%98god-bless-america%E2%8...
http://www.legallyspeakingonline.com/archive_winter09-10_update.html
It's not just uttering the words, you are made to stand, remove your cap, and you can't leave until the offensive song is over. All violations of individual freedom.
It's the start of the proverbial, slippery slope.
I dislike the crucifix but people wearing it don't violate my rights. Their wearing of a crucifix isn't forced upon me. When I go to a baseball game, I pay to see the game. I shouldn't be expected to show acknowledgement of a god. That is a violation of my individual rights.
Your sources indicate the law working exactly as it ought to. They do not support the idea that the use of the phrase, 'God bless America,' is itself a violation; only the attitudes, and in extreme cases, the physical actions, of apparently confused (and rare) individuals, are challenged by your evidence. Therefore, the use of the phrase, 'God bless America,' is rightfully banned only in a world in which a universal phrase, such as 'I hate your guts,' which can (not necessarily) prompt physical assault, are too banned. Therefore, your quarrel seems to be more with the social norms at hand than with the legislature.
You don't seem to understand. A place of business has no right to subject the public to acknowledging a belief, anymore than it can ban services to any individual based on race etc. My "quarrel", and it isn't mine alone, is with a business over stepping it's boundaries. It's basically forced indoctrination, subjugation. God bless America isn't a patriotic song, it's a song of obedience to a christian god. It alienates atheist, Sikhs, Buddhist, Muslims, Jews, and many more people. It's no different than if the business requested people to bow their heads in prayer, or requested them to kneel. It's a clear case of force subjugation.
As you say, it is only a "request" made by the business. That is completely legal, and any issue beyond that is a normative problem rather than a legal one by the Law of Excluded Middle.
You said, "It's not just uttering the words, you are made to stand, remove your cap, and you can't leave until the offensive song is over."
While in a stadium, I have never been forced to stand, I have never been forced to remove my cap, I have never been held until the song is over. I've never seen it done to others in a stadium.
Holding someone against their will is actually quite illegal. Has it actually happened to you? Did you press charges? I sure as hell would!
Absolute separation of church and state. I can not be free unless I allow others to be free.
I'm no longer living in America but I'm still an American citizen and I'm proud to come from a country that supports freedom of religion. It's one of the main reasons I am atheist. The fact that there are so many religions indicates that either there is no god, or there are hundreds of them. Monotheism is so last-century.
What I don't like are the religions that come to my door. I don't think freedom of religion should support religions that choose to foist their views upon others at their own front door. It should only support the person that seeks religion, not the con-jobs that sell it.
Apart from that the other thing that I don't like is the assertion you make at the end of your first paragraph:
"And the freedom to not believe, if one so chooses."
Believing in something when there is evidence that contradicts it is a choice. In fact, choosing the god in which to worship is the first choice you have to make, then you have to invent ways to believe in this god without losing sight of your sanity, another choice.
My non-belief is not a choice, it is a rational conclusion given the available evidence.
Pages