Posted on 01/23/2005 8:58:36 AM PST by Lindykim
Already there, bro.
You and I could call ANYTHING a "religion." Even an entity called the 'Church of anti-Churches.'
The definition of "religion" has been subverted and hijacked -- as has common sense.
"As an alternative, why not simply allow people to worship as they choose, or not, so long as they do no harm to the rights of another person? They can establish churches and whatnot as they will, subject as always to fraud laws and tax laws as appropriate."
Again, we're covering the same ground. Problem: Who is the arbiter of the conditions "harm" and "fraud"? Both concepts are relative, aren't they?
That's the problem with relativism and it's mantra of "tolerance" -- there is NO definitive "truth."
Without absolute values, anarchy and chaos can only prevail. AND hide behind the protective guise of "religion."
Christianity is the majority religion in America today. Why can't you leave it at that? Why this urge to attack the minority ones, even to the point of demanding that they "respect" Christianity above all others, or even advocating the banning of some of them?
This seems to be a strictly Constitutional question. I see not where "morals" come in, save as a means of circular argument.
Nope. If you use force or fraud to deprive another citizen of their rights to life, liberty, or property that constitutes harm. Such activity is properly prosecuted.
The simple existance of, say, the Eternal Church Of The Worship Of Naked Molerat does no harm to anyone. It is only when some individuals do harm that it becomes a problem, but even then that is solved by their imprisonment.
Besides, attacking every other religion save your own merely creates the impression that yours is threatened by them.
Ahem, in both Greece and Rome women could own property; abortion and infanticide are practiced nowadays in supposedly Christian nations; and Christians once used the Bible to justify enslaving their fellow men.
Who's advocating such policy?
But how about addressing attempts to defraud America and it's citizens by referring to any self-declaration of a "religion" as a front to plot and plan against said citizens?
And again -- WHO shall be the arbiter of what constitutes such a thing as "harm"? Especially when such arbiters are increasingly commanded to abide in "moral relativity" because it is more "tolerant"?
Let me simply ask you to imagine a purely theoretical scenario:
Would you believe the United States of America -- should Satanists and Muslims become dominant in numbers -- would still retain the same ideological course in "liberty" and "freedom for all" as we have since our Founding Fathers?
FRAUD by nature must include the intent to deprive someone of life, liberty and property through lies and misstatements. Who is "attempting to defraud America and it's citizens by referring to any self-declaration of a "religion" as a front to plot and plan against said citizens?"
Clarify, please.
If Andrea Yates had been a Secular Humanist, she might have been a danger to her children.
That is a good question, and I honestly don't have the answer, but you simply cannot be calling every single belief and ideology you run across a "religion".
Sometimes it's a loving thing to point out to a person that they aren't consistent with what they believe, or that that there are holes in their world view that they may not have considered. Jesus engaged in debates with religious leaders of His day and He essentially said "It isn't about religion, it's about a relationship between you and God, not how many religious duties you have performed."
That being said, what's a soft atheist?
I wonder if you'd be singing the same tune if you lived in a town that became majority Muslim and instituted Sharia law?
We should be very hesitant to outlaw most religions
This statement is kind of meaningless since there is no constitutional way to ban a religion in this country.
Probably Satanism has entered here, and I think the government has a perfect right to outlaw Satanism.
Please point out where in the Constitution governmment is given the power to ban religions.
Up until recently, every Christian country in the world treated women as second class citizens. Abortion, infanticide and child abandonment occurred in every Christian society in history. As for percentage of the population consisting of slaves, that number was never more than about 20% in Rome, which is a much smaller percentage than in the old Christian, god-fearing South.
I don't know. If an American soldier is dying on the battlefield, shouldn't he be ministered to by the clergy of his choice?
The proper role of government in a free society is the protection of the rights of the citizenry.
Absolutely sickening.
Here's another article...sorry if someone already posted.
Oct. 27, 2004
Couple indicted in death of toddler
* * *
The Summit County medical examiner determined that the child died of a broken neck. She also had a severed liver, old and new fractures in her arms and legs, and had been stuck with a needle in her feet and the side of her head about 40 times.
Jacqueline was taken by a township emergency crew on Oct. 6 from her home to Children's, where she was pronounced dead in the emergency room at 1:10 p.m. A surviving twin sister, Layloni Cooper, was taken into the emergency custody of the Summit County Children Services Board.
Akron Municipal Court records show McGlumphy was convicted of domestic violence and aggravated menacing in 2002, while Duffield has had numerous encounters with the law, including a conviction for child endangering in Portage County. He was paroled in March on a 2003 burglary conviction out of Summit County.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/beaconjournal/10025387.htm
I suppose it depends what you mean by religion. If, for example, a group of Baal worshippers started sacrificing their first-born children, then the government would have a right to step in and stop them.
If a group of us got together and said that our religion believes in child incest or feeding babies gin instead of milk, that too could be stopped.
Keep in mind, that my remarks were in the context of a group of people who snapped a child's neck as part of a religious ritual. Most people would say that the perps should be tried for murder. And if this action was actually part of their normal religious activities, and not an aberration, then the religion itself should be rooted out and banned just as you would root out any other group of conspirators to commit murder.
In fact, unlike some posters to this thread, I don't believe Wicca is necessarily evil. I believe it is foolish and misguided, and may open the doors to real evil. This particular group of people who call themselves Wiccans evidently have real problems.
The belief couldn't be stopped, only the act of incest or feeding babies gin.
And if this action was actually part of their normal religious activities, and not an aberration, then the religion itself should be rooted out and banned just as you would root out any other group of conspirators to commit murder.
No, it couldn't. The government does not have the power to ban religions. The only thing the government can do is arrest and prosecute people for violating laws against murder, child abuse etc. The government absolutely has no power to ban any religion.
Not even a good red herring.
Any tatoo's, piercings etc on a childs body should be treated as ENDANGERMENT.
And I include mothers who pierce the ears of infant children in that. WHAT the hell is THAT all about?
Let your children pierce themselves, when they are older if they want to...NOT when they are infants.
Why? Out of the thousands of Muslim soldiers we have, we have heard of problems with what three?
I can think of one who was arrested for THEFT at his home base, the one with the grenade into the tent and Cpl. Hassoun.
So why do you "suspect" them all?
Christians believe that Jesus will soon return to claim the Christians and take them "up into the air" with Him.
I am fully ready to go. That is why some of us will post things like that. (Come soon Lord Jesus, etc)
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.