This question is for Americans. Undeniably, despite the vast differences between atheists and agnostics on the one hand and the more exotic brands of Christianity that believe in snake handling and faith healing on the other, don't we have this in common: that we both depend upon respect for the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by The Bill of Rights? And thus shouldn't we step to their defense when the government wants to make an exception and prosecute them for their practices?
Remember, the mainstream religious community views us as pretty much in the same "religious weirdo" bag with the more wacko religious sects.
absolutely. most people don't understand that the establishment clause not only protects the state from religion, but religion from the state. it was specifically included with the history of religion in England (and elsewhere) up to that point in mind: the state had been fouled by religion, but also people had been told by the state how they could and could not worship.
i get what you're trying to say but to defend people who teach children and other adults lies is never right in my book.
it's for the rest of us to point out that they are teaching their children lies, not for the government to tell them that they can't.
unless you're suggesting a constitutional amendment is needed to "update" the Establishment Clause
if they can be convinced, then yes i'd agree with you but you know most of them will shove away any facts contradicting their religion. there's a point where you have to draw the line and say this is wrong.
the fact is no matter how many times you tell them they will not listen. and we shouldn't just let them do and say whatever they want because it's politically correct to do so.
the fact is no matter how many times you tell them they will not listen.and we shouldn't just let them do and say whatever they want because it's politically correct to do so.
You wanna toss out Freedom of Speech as well then? A democratic government can't mandate how it's citizens should live, think, speak, and what they should value. Citizens have the right not to listen, to wallow or revel in their religious ignorance--it's self-determination. People who know better can provide a light for those in doubt and support for those who do leave. We should be building stronger public education systems, not trying to close down the conversation entirely by driving fanatics underground.
no why would i want that? i was merely talking about if we should defend them. no i don't think they should be prosecuted.
but the idea of we should protect someone who promotes violence against a particular race or belief is wrong. and it's not difficult to find in the bible or qu'ran the promotion of violence against people who don't accept their god.
read through the bible explain why we should defend a book(that billions of people follow) that says slavery and honour killing is okay, women can be sold like any other properties, etc etc.
yes i understand that most of these people who call themselves "christians" or muslims or jews reject these actions but that doesn't change the fact that their holy book promotes these shit.
I think an amendment is needed.
It isn't just 'lies' they are 'telling them'. It is indoctrination, lies days in and days out, with FEAR to back it up and to make the 'lies' unquestionable.
This is child abuse. It isn't so simple as a parent telling their child one time that the Earth is the center of the Universe. It just simply isn't the same thing.
See, this exposes the problem or dilemma. Once we infringe upon their right to indoctrinate, we expose ourselves to the possibility that we might also become subject to what the majority believes is "right thinking."
I, too, think it's time to call a Constitutional Convention to update the U.S. Constitution, but I would want our freedoms (and those of other citizens) expanded, if anything, not limited.
People are surprised that I am uncomfortable with trials of faith healers, but it is in the interest of having freedom of as well as from religion preserved.
Good. We have the two poles laid out for us here.
The pot is properly stirred.
@Steve We can't forbid everything that endangers people's lives. Consider selling cigarettes or fatty foods. Endangering people's lives is built into automobiles by the compromises that need to be made between safety and having a product people can afford. No, you don't get away with that argument.