Posted on 06/16/2004 1:54:40 AM PDT by Mockingbird For Short
"freedom FROM religion is a religion of itself"
Not to mention a freedom in itself. Leave it to the theocrats and we would all be forced to morning prayers just like the Muslims of the Middle East.
For the fundamental right to claim that they support freedom is simply revolting. They are quite plainly the antithesis of freedom.
Here Here! Bump!
You fail to denominate your "theocrats."
Are these Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, Freewill, American Missionary,etc.), Methodists, Episcopals, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, or what?
None of the above - absolutely none - could even remotely considered to support the sort of theocrats that the Muslims of the Middle East are. You know better than that.
Incorrect.
Here's documentation:
From the Quinlan decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court
""n1 The importance of the preservation of life is memorialized in various organic documents. The Declaration of Independence states as self-evident truths "that all men * * * are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal is inherent in the Constitution of the United States. It is explicitly recognized in our Constitution of 1947 which provides for "certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life * * *." N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 1. Our State government is established to protect such rights, N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 2, and, acting through the Attorney General (N.J.S.A. 52:17A-4(h)), it enforces them""
Posted at http://academic.udayton.edu/LawrenceUlrich/quinlan.htm
...and I doubt that anyone else does either.
Doesn't matter.
I like that phrase in the Pledge.
That's enough for me.
redrock
"You know better than that"
I thought I use to, and that those days were behind us, that I lived in a country where one had the right to follow whatever religion they wanted to or to not follow any religion at all, if that is what they chose.
But after reading this board for several years I'm not so sure about that anymore. When Reagan was in office, and he was the first to really utilize the fundamental right, he knew how to pander to them to get votes and money, but he didn't really take them seriously. However, since Bush got in office, and at the onset I figured he was playing the same game as Reagan, I find out that he actually believes their lunacy. That I find concerning.
Your comments are all emotion and no documentation. Any examples of "theocrats" who would change the law to prevent any one from living "in a country where one had the right to follow whatever religion they wanted to or to not follow any religion at all, if that is what they chose"?
I can think of some of the latter - we don't allow human sacrifice, and some have complained about ritual slaughter of kosher meats. But, I haven't seen any calls to force any person in the US to pray.
As to the courts' concerns that some of us might feel put upon to refrain from praying when everyone else does, it would be good for more of us to stand up, teach our children what we believe, and even for our children to learn at an early age to live in the freedom not to follow the majority. But, I don't see why the majority has to be silent in order to allow the minority the freedom from discomfort.
A friend put it this way,"The minority is heard, but the majority rules." And, as long as no one is forced to speak or refrained by law from speaking, there is no first amendment infringement.
"But, I haven't seen any calls to force any person in the US to pray."
You're not familiar with the school prayer debate?
"As to the courts' concerns that some of us might feel put upon to refrain from praying when everyone else does, it would be good for more of us to stand up, teach our children what we believe, and even for our children to learn at an early age to live in the freedom not to follow the majority"
Now that is something I would have to agree with hence the nature of my posts. However, children are not secure enough in their own identity to be able to meet those kinds of challenges. But seeing their parents do it would be helpful.
“The minority is heard, but the majority rules”
Would seem then that the minority needs to get louder, or more aggressive.
The way it seems to me is that a very small minority is very vocal and very aggressive. Those of us who want to join in prayer have lost our ability to pray in venues we pay for, because the opposite side can't be quiet for a while. It' as though the atheists say, "We disagree, so you have to do what I say!" ("What we can't not know" J. Budzewsiski)
The infringement does not entail the atheist's refusal to participate - and he's certainly not being forced to participate - it's in the atheist's refusal to allow us to participate.
And in this lawsuit the father never married mom, never had custody, and the girl never went to the school in question in the first case. Mom takes the girl to church and the girl was upset with the lower court ruling. Why did the man try to cheat/lie to get his way?
> Incorrect.
What was incorrect? The existence of the DoI does not alter the fact that the Constitution set forth how the US would be organized. For documentation, see the Articles of Confederation... which did not work out, and were replaced by the Constitution. The AoC made the attempt to define the US, failed, and the C finally succeeded.
Heck, the examples you provide did mention the DoI... but then went on to show how it's the various *constitutions* that set forth what the actual rights are. Yes, the constitutions have some of the same verbage as the DoI... but it's still the constitutions that run things. And the Constitution of the United States makes no mention of any god.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.