Is religious freedom absolute - or may there be some exception?

[ClaraD]

So the law can do something about it after all.

nah they really cannot...they simply do not grant them a secular marriage license, but they cannot prohibit them from cohabitating or having sister 'wives' or prohibit their church from marrying them...what they can do is charge them with fraud for not reporting that they live with the father of their children.

 

[AGENT J]

Umm which of those things on his list do you want to legalize?

Who said I wanted to legalize anything on his list???? LOL

 

[Gatsby]

Who said I wanted to legalize anything on his list???? LOL

Perhaps I'm confused what you meant by this:

So you would get rid of Christianity in America if you could? wow
i wouldnt want that

It sounded like that was in response to his list of bad things. Do you consider those things to be essential to the free practice of religion?

 

[AGENT J]

Perhaps I'm confused what you meant by this:

It sounded like that was in response to his list of bad things. Do you consider those things to be essential to the free practice of religion?

Nope, not at all but the post i was responding to in question was obviously "trying" and failing to attack stereotypes of religion. So I pointed out the stupidity, dishonesty and hypocrisy of said post because it was a hilarious failure. Some people cant control their dishonest and bigoted views and its funny exposing those views.

 

[Gatsby]

Nope, not at all but the post i was responding to in question was obviously "trying" and failing to attack stereotypes of religion. So I pointed out the stupidity, dishonesty and hypocrisy of said post because it was a hilarious failure. Some people cant control their dishonest and bigoted views and its funny exposing those views.

Ah, got it. Sorry.

 

[Rumpel]

7 out of 7 now say:

There may be some exceptions​

 

[AGENT J]

7 out of 7 now say:

There may be some exceptions​

0-1 you explaining g how a person wearing a burka violates equal rights of people in america
lol

 

[ataraxia]

Mormons practiced polygamy, some of them having over a dozen wives.

This was against the law in most places so the Mormons moved out west to Utah.

Then the Mormons finally made polygamy illegal, but there were several splinter Mormon groups that practice polygamy even today. They usually put all their wives on welfare and that costs the taxpayers a lot of money.

.

Jehovah’s witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions, and some of their children with serious illnesses like leukemia were dying because of this. I think in some of these situations where it was absolutely desperate, doctors were able to override the parents and get transfusions for those children.

 

[Rumpel]

Jehovah’s witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions, and some of their children with serious illnesses like leukemia were dying because of this. I think in some of these situations where it was absolutely desperate, doctors were able to override the parents and get transfusions for those children.

Maybe there should be a law regulating such cases?

 

[ClaraD]

Maybe there should be a law regulating such cases?

there is...what this is, is that there is an overriding interest...a child cannot decide for themselves and denying them medical care that is to the detriment of their life or health is the line that is crossed. Can you show how in the US it is harmful to someone else that a woman wears a burka? Cite specific cases and remember if you ban the burka you also have to ban the turban, the Jewish wear, the cross, the crucifix, etc...because banning it also violates equal protection of the 14th amendment.

 

[AGENT J]

Maybe there should be a law regulating such cases?

Maybe you should explain what you mean in this post

If the freedom of religion is not absolute, then it should be possible to ban the burka, as it is against equal rights for women and men.

how is wearing a Burka against the equal rights of others.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is religious freedom absolute - or may there be some exception?

Suppose there are religions that demand things of their believers that go contrary to the law of the land.
What then?

You omitted the "No. There ARE exceptions as anyone who actually looks at society can plainly see."

 

[ataraxia]

Maybe there should be a law regulating such cases?

There are many Muslim women who really WANT to wear a burqa. Are you going to oppress them and force them to take it off so that they’re not oppressed? It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Freedom of religion may be limited in cases where the state has a valid secular purpose for a law that's in the public interest.

You mean that, when "The Constitution" says

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof"​

it really means

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

That's a horrible thought because that would imply that when "The Constitution" says

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"​

it really means

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

and that is totally unthinkable to all patriotic, right-thinking, patriotic, hard working, patriotic, honest, patriotic, real, patriotic, true, patriotic, conservative, patriotic, Christian, patriotic, White, patriotic, American, patriotic, patriots.

 

[ClaraD]

You mean that, when "The Constitution" says

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof"​

it really means

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

That's a horrible thought because that would imply that when "The Constitution" says

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"​

it really means

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

and that is totally unthinkable to all patriotic, right-thinking, patriotic, hard working, patriotic, honest, patriotic, real, patriotic, true, patriotic, conservative, patriotic, Christian, patriotic, White, patriotic, American, patriotic, patriots.

In the US your freedom or Constitutional rights are in place as long as they do not impede on the rights of others. For instance, a person who is a felon loses their right to own a gun...especially someone who has killed someone with a gun...why? they violated a victim's Constitutional right to live or not be attacked.

 

[Gatsby]

You mean that, when "The Constitution" says

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof"​

it really means

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

Yes, that is correct.

That's a horrible thought because that would imply that when "The Constitution" says

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"​

it really means

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

Yes, that is also correct. Rights are not absolute, although you need a very good reason to infringe on them. "I don't like burqas" doesn't cut it.

and that is totally unthinkable to all patriotic, right-thinking, patriotic, hard working, patriotic, honest, patriotic, real, patriotic, true, patriotic, conservative, patriotic, Christian, patriotic, White, patriotic, American, patriotic, patriots.

OK. If you find it unthinkable, then don't think about it. But that's how the American legal tradition has always operated.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Mormons practiced polygamy, some of them having over a dozen wives.

This was against the law in most places so the Mormons moved out west to Utah.

Then the Mormons finally made polygamy illegal, but there were several splinter Mormon groups that practice polygamy even today. They usually put all their wives on welfare and that costs the taxpayers a lot of money.

.

The Mormons did NOT "finally [make] polygamy illegal". What actually happened is that the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints recommended that their congregants comply with the secular law and limit themselves to one wife (at a time). The Elders also directed the Clergy not to officiate at weddings where they knew that the marriage was polygamous (the Elders did NOT dissolve any existing polygamous marriages nor did the declare that a marriage that was polygamous, but where the officiating Clergy did not know of that fact, was a nullity).

In short, the ACTUAL position of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints is

"Polygamy is permitted by God, but forbidden by The State.
God will not punish someone if they do NOT take more than one wife.
The State will punish someone if they DO take more than one wife.

For those reasons we are not going to officially allow people to do what God allows them to do
- FOR NOW -."​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In the US your freedom or Constitutional rights are in place as long as they do not impede on the rights of others. For instance, a person who is a felon loses their right to own a gun...especially someone who has killed someone with a gun...why? they violated a victim's Constitutional right to live or not be attacked.

In other words, they are NOT "Constitutional RIGHTS", but rather they are "Constitutional PRIVILEGES".

 

[Gatsby]

In other words, they are NOT "Constitutional RIGHTS", but rather they are "Constitutional PRIVILEGES".

Rights and privileges have very specific meanings in US law, and they have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, that is correct.


Yes, that is also correct. Rights are not absolute, although you need a very good reason to infringe on them. "I don't like burqas" doesn't cut it.


OK. If you find it unthinkable, then don't think about it. But that's how the American legal tradition has always operated.

You might try actually reading my last sentence over again to see who it is for whom it is unthinkable.

 

[Gatsby]

You might try actually reading my last sentence over again to see who it is for whom it is unthinkable.

It's unthinkable for some imaginary person you invented in your head. Fortunately, imaginary people don't have to think.

 

[jimbo]

Then the answer to your question is no. Religious freedom is not absolute.

For starters the first 4 words of the first are "Congress shall make no law". That is a limitation.

The only amendment with no modifiers is the second. Yet for some reason congress seems to think that it's perfectly OK to modify it any way they choose.

 

[ClaraD]

In other words, they are NOT "Constitutional RIGHTS", but rather they are "Constitutional PRIVILEGES".

nope...there is a famous phrase here in the US...your rights end where my rights begin...can you figure out what that means?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Rights and privileges have very specific meanings in US law, and they have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Sorry, I am talking about "fact" and not "legal terminology".

"I have a right to keep and bear arms."
(this is a "right")​

and

"I have revocable permission to keep and bear arms provided that I _[fill in the blank]_."
(this is a "privilege")​

do NOT mean the same thing.

You can call a "privilege" a "right" all you want to but that does not convert it into one any more than calling a dog's tail a leg converts it into a five legged animal.

 

[Mulefoot]

Religious "freedom" has never been absolute and never should be

My Christianity doesn't give me special rights or treatment. In the super vast majority of cases, i have to play by the same rules as everybody else i dont get to violate the law or rights of others.

So if a religion "demands" something of their believers which i doubt that goes against the laws of the land, 99.9% of the time the law wins. IN that .1% its typically something meaningless that doesn't violate the rights of others, doesn't have a victim and doesn't hurt/harm/endanger others/society.

Exactly. See Paul's letter to the Roman Christians requesting that they submit to the governing authorities - which happened to be Nero at the time of Paul's letter. Not only did Nero kill Christians in the most horrific manner he also did it for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. Yet Paul - who was most likely ultimately killed by Nero - continually and without wavering implored Christians to submit to same.

I'm a Christian, but when today's Christians go snowflake and claim persecution when they're blocked by Twitter, meh, not a lot of sympathy out of me.