Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Always Right
You wrote:
Nobody wants laws that mandate religion, but you seem to take the extreme position that any acknowledgement is somehow coercion.

I write:
Please explain for me the difference between an acknowledgment and a mandate and provide examples of what you believe are permissible acknowledgments; and tell me why the government should be forbidden to use the sword yet allowed to use the pen?.
237 posted on 01/16/2006 7:39:36 AM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]


To: FredFlash
Please explain for me the difference between an acknowledgment and a mandate and provide examples of what you believe are permissible acknowledgments; and tell me why the government should be forbidden to use the sword yet allowed to use the pen?

A mandate would be a religious test that requires someone to take on oath saying you believe a certain way in order to obtain a government privilege like a job/position or to graduate or to drive. A mandate has some sort of punishment element. An acknowledgment would be to recognize religious holidays like Christmas and Easter and to allow displays like manger scenes and to allow religious prayer or speeches at events such as a graduation. An acknowledgment would have no sort of punishment element attached and no requirement to participate. Just being exposed to it would not constitute a requirement to participate.

Currently, exposure of a majority belief to a minority belief is considered coercive and sometimes banned, but exposure of a minority belief to the majority is not, which is an odd and an extreme interpretation.

238 posted on 01/16/2006 8:34:51 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson