Well, one thing it means Mr. Washington Post writer, is that most U. S. Citizens believe in God and our Constitutional guarantees.Posted on 08/12/2012 8:14:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
........What does religious freedom look like? As America gets more religiously diverse, the concept is becoming harder to define.
The bishops poured resources into their “Fortnight for Freedom” effort, which warned that Americans’ liberty to practice religion is at risk. It featured overflow mega-Masses with special prayers for the protection of religious liberty. A slew of lawsuits are pitting the president against some of the most prominent Catholic institutions in the nation.
What do we mean when we talk about the freedom to practice religion in America? Who gets to define it? And when should religious liberty yield to other values?
..........Perhaps nothing has created more tension over religious freedom than something that was created to boost it: much-expanded partnerships between the government and faith-based groups.
Court decisions in the 1990s made it easier for public money to flow to religious institutions — specifically, to religious schools in the form of vouchers and to overtly sectarian groups that provide social services such as anti-addiction programs or housing assistance.
In an era of bigger government, faith-based groups argue that they need to be part of the social services being provided — with no major strings attached. That may mean a Christian group being able to hang a cross on the wall at a government-funded drug-addiction treatment office. Or not being forced to hire people of another religion at a government-funded disaster aid organization.
If the government gives a Catholic group a grant and exempts it from some federal requirements, such as giving women access to contraception, is that a win for religion? Or is it a loss, since some might think that the government preferred one faith group over another?....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, one thing it means Mr. Washington Post writer, is that most U. S. Citizens believe in God and our Constitutional guarantees.Even if you are not Catholic, watch this video, it says a lot. Catholics and all other religions need to really come together on this one. The time has come to tell government to butt out of our religions that built this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd
and you better sit down before you read this...Good questions. I’ve seen even freepers suggest that atheists be second class citizens, so I have a hunch the interpretation of religious freedom varies highly among individuals.
It means anything but Jesus.
...another thing Obama doesn’t think anyone but government could have built. Oh wait... None the less, I’ll bet there’s at least a 50/50 chance of him thinking that.
Powerful..My Baptist son sent this to me some time ago..I sent it on to others.
This Protestant agrees with you..We must stand together on this.
Not me. I’ve known too many good conservative FReeper atheists. I don’t necessarily agree with their non belief but I’m a live and let live type.
The big difference between conservative and liberal atheists is that liberals get their panties in a wad at the mere mention of God and conservative atheists understand that our constitution is steeped in Judeo Christianity and generally think its a good thing even if they don’t believe.
I wouldn't want to see them treated as second class citizens. I just want atheism recognized as an article of faith. As a religion. Secular humanism should be protected just like Catholicism or Judaism, or whatnot.
Which means, of course, that government schools could not say "we don't teach religion" because everything is under a religious worldview of some kind. And no one could say to a church, "Preaching like that puts your tax-exempt status at risk" because any kind of sermon is necessarily representing some kind of religious worldview.
We've been giving secular humanism a privileged status. We need to stop. It's just a religion. Not more protected, not less protected.
“And when should religious liberty yield to other values?”
And when should freedom of the press yield to other values?
It just depends on what freedoms we like at the moment, apparently.
The day is coming when we will have to decide how precious our freedoms are to us, or whether we will just sit back on the recliner in front of TV with a beer and let our children and grandchildren be enslaved.
Since this article is in the WaPo, my suspicion is it's just the opening piece to try and whittle down what freedoms religions are to be allowed.
Libs get their rights from the Constitution (and, by extension, the government); conservatives get their rights from a natural order. To a lib, the Constitution gives allowances; to conservatives, The Constitution limits government.
Elites say those who don’t believe in their doctrine of global warming science are right wing extremists that “don’t believe in science” (as in dumb, knuckle dragging, gun toting, church goers).
Is science their religion — the green bible of Creation Care?
If America is not a Christian nation, it will be part of the Islamic nation.
“So many religions” is a feature not a bug.
Typical liberal turn-of-phrase. See how they couch the question as "giving access to..."? As if to imply that the women wouldn't have any other resource to contraception, and that it would only be "giving" them access to it, where, in reality, the organization would have to pay for something against its beliefs.
In an era of bigger government...
Are they admitting something here?
Exactly. Regardless of what our differences are, we all know what freedom of religion means. For now, we need to put our differences aside for the sake of our country. If Obama can get away with demeaning our religions, he can do anything he wants to destroy this country.
The term “religious freedom” becomes increasingly meaningless in an era of Big Government. “Religious freedom” means having the ability to live the tenets of your faith without coercion or intrusion from the government. This concept is completely irrelevant when the government gets involved in things that no free nation should ever tolerate (even something as ingrained in our national fabric as public education, for example).
| "There are only three balancing tests that I am aware of when it comes to matters of constitutional significance. There is the rational basis balancing test for economic legislation, there is the intermediate or mid-level scrutiny for gender-related constitutional issues and then there is the heightened or strict scrutiny when fundamental rights are involved. And given the fact that I am sure you can see that religious liberty is a fundamental right..." |
And then Gowdy cites 4 precedents, when competing goods were put up against religious liberty. The competing goods were the state's interest in:
The Court in every one of those cases found that religious liberty trumped the other interests, because these other issues weren't essential to the core functioning of the State, nor were they important enough to override a fundamental right.
There are limits. You can't be cutting people's hearts out to placate Huitzilopochtli, or having sexual relations with little girls like Mohammad. But if the State's interest isn't something absolutely fundamental like the prevention or murder and rape, the State's interest remains subordinate to religious liberty.
As I understand it.
(What do we mean when we talk about the freedom to practice religion in America?)
There is only one meaning and that was set forth in US Constitution
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.