Obama

[statsman]

Freedom of religion includes the right NOT to have a religion and not to be bothered by those who suffer from their particular faith.

It has gone rather overboard nowadays with no Christmas decorations and Happy Holidays etc.

What really upsets me is the number of fundamentalist Christian preachers in the US who attempt to influence legislation by claiming its ungodly, unchristian or whatever.

If they're right, why don't they stand for election. If God is really on their side they'll win in a landslide.

 

[ColinEssex]

Freedom of religion in the USA? Ah yes that means setting up a sect and abusing children and women in Texas.

BBC news here

Col

 

[Darth Vodka]

Incorrect.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, there is no state sponsored religion and you are free to practice any religion you want. That's the Constitution.

The term "separation between church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and is not part of the Constitution.

how is that hair you're splitting?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems pretty much to be secularism to be

 

[Darth Vodka]

The Iraq surge is only a year old

we invaded over five years ago

 

[Brianwarnock]

how is that hair you're splitting?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems pretty much to be secularism to be

It's wonderful what a bit of editing can do, just continue your quote a bit further.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and what we find is that congress is neither going to promote or hinder any religion, seems pretty fair to me.

Brian

 

[Heywood43]

how is that hair you're splitting?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems pretty much to be secularism to be

The meaning is clear. The government will not back any religion.

All I am trying to say is that people today have expanded that to mean there should be absolutely no religion in public life.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the Constitution to support that claim. That would actually be supporting atheism as a belief which would go against that very amendment.

Anyway this post is about Obama, I didn't mean to take the subject into a different direction. I just wanted to point out what the Constitution says.

 

[Alc]

we invaded over five years ago

Yes, but remember how we won a few years ago?
This push is for a different war.

 

[Darth Vodka]

The meaning is clear. The government will not back any religion.

All I am trying to say is that people today have expanded that to mean there should be absolutely no religion in public life.

not me

fair comment on the constitution, but i wasn't quoting it directly and i think the ethos of it is secularism itself

and sorry, OT, back to Oh Bomb-a Hussein's Barracks

 

[Mick Jagger]

The meaning is clear. The government will not back any religion.

Religion is totally exempt from the cognizance of the government. No authoirty whatsoever regarding religion was granted in the Constitution.

All I am trying to say is that people today have expanded that to mean there should be absolutely no religion in public life.

It's free country, dude. People can expand any idea they want to. There's no statute or judicial opinion that says there should be absolutely no religion in public life.

 

[Mick Jagger]

I just wanted to point out what the Constitution says.

I just want to point out that the Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever over religion.

 

[KenHigg]

Would you care to define exaclty what you mean when you use the word 'religion' in the previous statement? Just define it a little so your statement can be put in the proper context.

 

[Rabbie]

Would you care to define exaclty what you mean when you use the word 'religion' in the previous statement? Just define it a little so your statement can be put in the proper context.

It could be dangerous to go down that road Ken. Some of my definitions might be needlessly inflamatory so I will keep them to myself as I do not wish to upset those who have deeply held and sincere beliefs

 

[KenHigg]

It's just that the it was put one might erroneously assume anything related to religion is off limits to any form of government, which is not the case...

 

[ColinEssex]

There's no statute or judicial opinion that says there should be absolutely no religion in public life.

But it would be a much happier world if religion of any sort didn't exist.

Col

 

[georgedwilkinson]

But it would be a much happier world if religion of any sort didn't exist.

Col

Do you have a link to the study you got that information from?

 

[Rich]

Do you have a link to the study you got that information from?

One only has to examine the facts over the years, the evidence is there for all with open eyes to arrive at the correct conclusion

 

[Rich]

It's free country, dude. People can expand any idea they want to. There's no statute or judicial opinion that says there should be absolutely no religion in public life.

Well that's odd, isn't communism a religion?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

One only has to examine the facts over the years, the evidence is there for all with open eyes to arrive at the correct conclusion

Oh, then could you state those facts along with their sources to indicate what Col said earlier? Seems like this exercise could be a bit subjective, so any studies you include may help.

What I had always heard was that people who had deep religious convictions and activity were more likely to be self-actualized (level 5...remember Maslow's hierarchy?), indicating that they had a more full, and yes, happy, life (it always seemed to work for me).

I haven't looked to see if there was an actual study to prove that, though I also haven't made the statement opposite of Col's and thus, don't really need to prove it, though it does make sense. Just looking to see if either of you have any facts that are provable (not subjective) to back up your premise.

 

[statsman]

Freedom of religion in the USA? Ah yes that means setting up a sect and abusing children and women in Texas.

BBC news here

Col

I'm far more interested in the tax exempt status.

Seriously for a moment, it's unbelievable what some "religions" will do in the name of their faith. Start with the Crusades and the Inquisition then move forward (or backward).

 

[Rich]

Years of research, wasn't Hitler backed by the catholic church?