Declaration of Religious Freedom and The Rights of Man - Please help!

Self - with obvious help from Jefferson and Madison ^ | September 18, 2001 | Self - Pardon the obvious plagiarism

[Tunehead54]

Dear Freepers:

The world needs your help. I could use a little myself.

We are at the crossroads. The world may soon be a better place or worse. Terrorism, racism, discrimination and oppression are the fundamental enemies of world peace.

To vanquish these enemies will require more than military intervention no matter how long prolonged. It will take more. As long as any nation or people can rationalize war, terrorism, racism, discrimination or oppression based on religious precepts our world will continue to suffer atrocities.

Imagine a world with all governments guided by precepts that have made the United States what it is today.

If terrorism is to be conquered all religious and political leaders of the world should call for tolerance and an end to terrorism, racism and religious hatred. No nation should be able to justify harboring terrorists and providing them aid and comfort.

I trust you'll forgive the obvious plagiarism and editing of our most precious bases. I couldn't stop with just a call for worldwide freedom of religion. Too many strengths of the United States are interelated and supportive of each other.

More than anything else I'd appreciate concise "Whereas" additions/corrections that concisely deny the legitimacy of terrorism, racism, religious hatred and oppression.

I do not propose to change the world - I wish only that the people of the world could look to improve the future rather than seeking to destroy it. Which road will we take?

[Dumb_Ox]

With all this talk on what is good and not good regarding God and man, you are setting up another religion with its own dogmas and holy texts. I already have a religion, thank you.

[Tunehead54]

With all this talk on what is good and not good regarding God and man, you are setting up another religion with its own dogmas and holy texts. I already have a religion, thank you.

Appropriate handle you've chosen.

I'm suggesting all people of the world should enjoy the benefits of freedom of religion - whatever their religion.

Even you and yours.

I'm also seeking arguments to deny terrorism sanctuary in any religion. Period.

Does your religion support religious and racist bigotry? Are we for discrimination and oppression?

Hope not.

[Tunehead54]

Ping for comment/input

- Bang_List: Worldwide 2nd Amendment anyone?

[Notwithstanding]

"- Because all peoples are created equal, each person is entitled to practice the precepts of his religion without obstruction in any corner of this world."

This alone makes your proposal worthy of sh_t-canning. Some religions or culture practice or have practiced pederasty, others human sacrifice, others torture and slavery. Such cultures or religions are not equal to those which do not practice such barbarism. Each person ought not be able to practice his religion without obstruction.

[kevkrom]

Some religions or culture practice or have practiced pederasty, others human sacrifice, others torture and slavery. Such cultures or religions are not equal to those which do not practice such barbarism. Each person ought not be able to practice his religion without obstruction.

Perhaps a simple qualifier "in any manner that does not affect the rights of another person" would help? All of those cases you listed involved violating the rights of other people.

[WIMom]

As many of you know, I help with the FreeRepublic fundraisers. It is not always easy or fun sitting at a computer for hours and hours monitoring those threads. Everyone who work the threads VOLUNTEERS to do so. We spend days and weeks helping to keep FreeRepublic running.

Ask yourself these questions:

Where is the first place I go to get my news?
Am I getting any benefit from FreeRepublic?
Am I learning from FreeRepublic?

FreeRepublic is not free. It costs Jim Robinson tens of thousands of dollars to keep this forum running. There are over 60,000 registered users on FreeRepublic and only 1,000 help keep this forum running. Those who do not have the ability to donate money could help by bumping the threads once in a while. Those who who do should be ashamed of yourselves. You are a FReeploader.

Go ahead, flame me. I don't care. I contribute to FreeRepublic, and I for one do not want to see this forum dead.

If everyone who registered donated one measly dollar a month, we would never have to have a fundraiser again.

FreeRepublic Fundraiser --WE WILL STAND UNITED!!!-- We NEED YOUR HELP AND PATRIOTIC POSTS! Thread 68

Donate Here by Secure Server

Or Mail your check to:

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794


To donate By Paypal:

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[Snuffington]

Appropriate handle you've chosen.

If you knew the origin of that nickname you'd realize that you have unwittingly delivered a compliment instead of an insult.

You make comments such as:

- Discrimination against another based on another's belief's or race must be against a just and righteous G-d's law;

That is a theological statement. It is at odds with the teachings of many of the world's religions.

- Because all peoples are created equal, each person is entitled to practice the precepts of his religion without obstruction in any corner of this world.

Is entirely unworkable. The practice of some religions would destroy your recommended principles for government.

[Tunehead54]

TH54: "- Because all peoples are created equal, each person is entitled to practice the precepts of his religion without obstruction in any corner of this world."

Notwithstanding:

This alone makes your proposal worthy of sh_t-canning. Some religions or culture practice or have practiced pederasty, others human sacrifice, others torture and slavery. Such cultures or religions are not equal to those which do not practice such barbarism. Each person ought not be able to practice his religion without obstruction.

Hey - it says first draft! So I agree - maybe human sacrifice is a little much - yet our 1st Amendment protects us without a lot of human sacrifices. Maybe cause we also have laws against murder? And against child and animal abuse? In case Santeria comes up re the latter.

[Tunehead54]

Thanks for your input. The impetus for this post was originally and simply to question the use of religion to justify the use of terror to slaughter of innocents.

Which religion encourages "Discrimination against another based on another's belief's or race ..."?

Remember that often a "religious" interpretation is actually a political one.

I'm asking for help here - not laying down Tunehead's law. Also we're talking religion here so thoughts will likely not be strictly logical in this thread.

Take care.

[Snuffington]

Which religion encourages "Discrimination against another based on another's belief's or race ..."?

I'm not sure about race (the only examples I'm aware of affecting race are historical, not current). I was mostly concerned that your statement included a prohibition against discrimination based on belief.

I can't think of a single religion that agrees with that concept. Religions have all sorts of teachings calling for unbelievers to be treated differently than believers. They aren't all mean spirited things. Some are even common sense. But they are undeniably discriminatory.

[kennyo]

Bang_List: Worldwide 2nd Amendment anyone?

Let's go for a nation-wide 2nd amendment first

[2ndMostConservativeBrdMember]

My dear brother and sister FReepers,

At this, of all times in my lifetime, I would like nothing more than to be able to read these threads and reply to them.  I have much I would like to say.

BUT, I cannot!

Why?

Because I am trying hard to raise the finances needed to keep FreeRepublic up and running so that we can continue to share valuable information and respond to it.

I beg you, if you have not yet donated to FreeRepublic this quarter,  do so now!

I realize you are giving to lots of Relief efforts and I encourage you to do so.  But we need to help FR too.  Where would we be right now without it?

If you have no money, please come and bump the Fundraiser Thread.

I would really like to reach our goal quickly so that I and the rest of the dedicated FReepers who are working the Fundraiser Threads can participate in what is undeniably the most important time in FreeRepublic's history.

FreeRepublic Fundraiser --WE WILL STAND UNITED!!!-- We NEED YOUR HELP AND PATRIOTIC POSTS! <--click here

Support FreeRepublic! Support the U.S.A. <--click here

[VoodooEconomist]

This alone makes your proposal worthy of sh_t-canning.

I dunno, I sort of like the regular slaughtering of lambs, as my Lord God Jehovah commands.

[VoodooEconomist]

I won't even touch this. Too many religious fanatics on FR to make this a worthwhile endeavor. Besides, we have no long-term visionaries like Jeffersons or Madison to do this right. It's better left alone, IMO. Free people. Free minds. Free markets. Let people congregate where they wish. Constrain government ... not people.

[Dumb_Ox]

Does your religion support religious and racist bigotry? Are we for discrimination and oppression?

Noble sentiments, certainly. However, I do have some reservations about your document. Who defines what bigotry is? For instance, according to certain feminists the Catholic refusal to ordain priestesses is based in sexist bigotry, rather than in theological argument. The Homosexual lobby would like to classify as "hate speech" certain teachings of orthodox Christianity. I do not doubt some would eagerly use a decree such as this one(the UN Declaration, perhaps) in pushing their agenda.

A few points of your article I find presumptuous and/or problematic:

No war can be holy

Protecting a nation from despots and tyrants is not a holy endeavour?

Discrimination against another based on another's belief's or race must be against a just and righteous G-d's law

So we are then forbidden from thinking nasty thoughts about Bin Laden? For telling one's Satanist employee to stop wearing that pentagram? This principle can be used to undermine the First Amendment's guarantee to freely associate--or disassociate--with whom one chooses.

The nature of government is to govern and to create rules for its citizens allowing them to live together peaceably and therefore any law enforcing a religious edict necessarily infringes on another's freedom of religion

What qualifies as a "religious edict"? And does not this principle infringe upon some persons' liberty to live under the system of, say, Mosaic law?

Regarding places of worship must be preserved and made reasonably accessible for worship by all

Too vague. Does this mean I must pay for the construction of mosques? For the upkeep of Ian Paisley's churches, to ensure "reasonable access"?

Because all peoples are created equal, each person is entitled to practice the precepts of his religion without obstruction in any corner of this world.

Does this mean we must allow human sacrifice, to ensure religious freedom?

Any person of conscience must know and make known that tolerance of another's beliefs is pleasing to a just and righteous G-d.

So am I not a person of conscience because I find the worship of the ancient Greek deities loathesome? Because I accept the words of the Psalmist, that all the gods of the gentiles are devils? Because I believe that devil-worship is hated by the just and righteous God?

This particular section reeks of religious indifferentism--not suprising, since this whole piece, when put forward as the natural truth about man, resembles the indifferentist anthropology of Deism. And an establishment of the religion of Deism kinda undermines the whole non-establishment of religion thing.

Some of the problems I've harped on here are elucidated in Kenneth Craycraft's _The American Myth of Religious Freedom_. It's been discussed here on FR before, here are a few links:

Religion and the Constitution
Rousseau's Civil Religion(take a look at his views on "tolerance")

I fear what you are trying to do is create a tradition-independent philosophy. This is bound to fail, since that attempt itself is the product of the Enlightenment tradition. Alasdair MacIntyre has made some good points about the futility of such an endeavour.

[Notwithstanding]

What on earth is wrong with slaughtering lambs? To me your comment is a non sequitir to this dialogue. You need to explain yourself, else I can't understand the point you are trying to make.

[Notwithstanding]

Tunehead said: "The impetus for this post was originally and simply to question the use of religion to justify the use of terror to slaughter of innocents."

Given your stated impeteus, you have crafted an awfully elaborate document.

In all seriousness, I am sure you have pure intentions.

[ctdonath2]

I'll have to side with Dumb_Ox. While yours seems a noble endeavor, it has been spelled out perfectly well in the Bible, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights...and certain points distinctly conflict with these declarations.

It is, however, a reasonable exercise for someone to pursue in an attempt to clarify their own beliefs. Just don't expect anyone else to buy it.

[Tunehead54]

I'll have to side with Dumb_Ox. While yours seems a noble endeavor, it has been spelled out perfectly well in the Bible, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights...and certain points distinctly conflict with these declarations.

Yes we have our Bill of Rights. 285 million Americans benefit from it. However out of 6 billion people worldwide a very small percentage of people enjoy the protections most of us take for granted.

I believe we have some Christians in Afghanistan that would appreciate a little more religious tolerance.

Thanks for the "noble endeavor" part. For many years I mulled creating a "fill-in-the-blank" constitution taking the best from ours and others but have never had the time.

For the chance of a better world ... a little time is cheap.