[–] birds_sing 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Christianity has many branches. One of these branches is Mormonism. In Mormonism polygamy isn't just allowed it's also encouraged. But polygamy is illegal. While you are free to practice Mormonism, you are not allowed to practice the parts that are illegal. The law comes before freedom of religion.
Unless it's Islam, that's different. In Islam you can practice polygamy, have child brides, beat all of your wives (because they're your property), kill homosexuals, rape, molest children, perform honor killings, etc. Because it's ok to be anti-Christian, but being Islamophobic is wrong. And the reason for that is the vocal minority says so. And the silent majority allows themselves to be silenced with two words - Racist and Islamophobic. Oh, and there's no such thing as equality. You aren't allowed to treat a Muslim the same way you would treat a Christian.
Those two words have power Racist and Islamophobe. Take the power away from those words and maybe someday we'll have equality.
[–] iamjanesleftnipple 3 points 2 points 5 points (+5|-3) ago
They also don't understand the concept for Freedom of Speech. They will go on and on about how the "lefties" want to censor and silence them and in the same breath ask the question "How can we shut them up and silence them ?"
[–] Proppa 6 points 6 points 12 points (+12|-6) ago (edited ago)
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion
Freedom of speech means freedom from speech
Sorry I'm just tired of this dumb interpretation. What our forefathers had in mind was preventing religious persecution that they themselves faced overseas, I don't think they had any problems with imposing their religious ideologies on non-religious people. You see it to this very day
[–] SecularPenguinist 4 points 3 points 7 points (+7|-4) ago
Your play on words doesn't compute. Switching them around changes the meaning.
Indeed freedom from religion is the correct interpretation. Why do you think we seceded from England in the first place?
Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Adams were quite secular.
[–] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Eh, Washington favored retaining Anglicanism as the state religion of Virginia. Ditto for Adams and Congregationalism in Massachusetts.
That sounds like the Taliban. Even today's religious right in the US wouldn't go so far.
[–] Kal [S] 4 points 3 points 7 points (+7|-4) ago (edited ago)
I'm not sure what you mean, but if you read about Freedom of Religion in the first amendment also being Freedom from Religion you'll see that I am not just pulling that out of thin air.
There have been enough books on this subject to fill libraries. Perhaps you should get busy reading?
The Founding Fathers had a radically different conception of religious freedom. Influenced by the Enlightenment, they had great confidence in the individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason. To them, true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in the Bible but rather was to be found through free rational inquiry. Drawing on radical Whig ideology, a body of thought whose principal concern was expanded liberties, the framers sought to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
[–] fuck_communism 12 points 13 points 25 points (+25|-12) ago
It was also meant to ensure Freedom from Religion.
No, it was not. It was simply meant to prohibit the establishment of a state religion the way the Anglican Church is the state religion of Great Britain, where the the Queen is both the head of state, and the head of the church. Fuck you people are stupid.
[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 17 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago
No, it was not. It was simply meant to prohibit the establishment of a state religion
That's exactly what "Freedom from Religion" means: Not having religion forced upon you by the government.
[–] fuck_communism 7 points 2 points 9 points (+9|-7) ago
The phrase "freedom from religion" does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights, therefore it has no legal or universal meaning, and means only what the person using it says. It is as definitive as "more" or "less."
[–] fuck_communism 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
Start here. "Fuck you people are stupid" is not an argument, it is an observation.
[–] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
All the First Amendment did on establishment was recognize the obvious - that the US was too diverse in religion to have a national church. That's it. The individual states usually had state established churches. Mostly Anglicanism in the South and Congregationalism in New England.
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The U.S. in 1789 was not "religiously diverse," as the phrase is used today. Believers were 95% Protestant - Anglicans/Episcopalians, and congregationalists (pretty much Anglicans who did not recognize the authority of the British church, and who believed it was still "too Catholic").
The framers of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were concerned that a state religion would vest power over Americans in the hand of a foreign government - Great Britain, and/or create a defacto fourth branch of government.
As written, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of state religions by individual states.
[–] Tat_Tvam_Asi 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Remember, that old document is no good anymore because it was written a long time ago when slavery was legal and by white men. All joking aside, I was told that very thing as an excuse as to why we should redo it.
[–] middle_path ago
I've heard this as well. Funny how the same people will defend the Koran, which is much older and by that logic - needs a big redo.
[–] Tat_Tvam_Asi 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I like your perspective. I'm taking it an adding it to my collection.
[–] anoneko 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So you're saying the athiesm is a belief as well.
[–] Kal [S] ago
Of course it is. They have faith that there is no god, correct? Do they know this to be a fact? It is indeed a belief.
[–] iamjanesleftnipple ago
No, we just have no reason to believe in the existence of an entity that there is no proof is actually out there. Bring forward some proof that can be objectively and independently verified and then we'll talk.