Freedom of Religion

Define expression first.

I don't care what people want to preach, believe or whatever else they want to do just DON'T PUSH IT ON ME. KEEP THY RELIGION TO THY SELF.

Whatever "expression" any other group has...human rights, peta, pro-choice, anti-war...

Should religious people have that same expression?

And how does this happen? Give an example? And should that behavior be outlawed?

Everyone should become communist and atheist, yea... thats the solution


edit: OMG have I really made 600 comments on this forum????

Yes.

My beef is when "expression" is barred by other laws...so, to give you an extreme example..say a religion cropped up that believed human sacrafice was an expression of their fath. No, it shouldn't be protected simply because it is religious expression.

The state should not impose religion, but it should not condon otherwise illegal acts for the sake of religion.

For God's sake no way!

No form of expression should be limited by the government unless it infringes on other's rights.

What if some one is proseltyzing and you ask them to stop, but they don't? Is that infringing on your rights?

Agreed, as long as its kept legal, you should have the same right to express yourself as the next person

As long as your civil/non-violent about it I have no problem with people expressing opinions, even ones I totally disagree with

Yes. and its harassment.

So you don't like my sig?

What about tele-solicitors? That's harrassment too, isn't it?

How about a national "Don't Call" list for evangelists.

As-Salaamu Alaikum
wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu!

Right?

when you get friends or others you meet trying to convert you to this or that religion. Example born again christians. No it shouldn't be outlawed at all, people can believe what they want. I just don't want to have it pushed on me.

Where can I get on the list?

So advertising in general should be banned speech?

People can believe in the products, just don't tell me about them....

I especially don't like it when people fly airplanes into large buildings killing thousands to express their freedom of religion.

Ah... but some would argue that was a political statement, and not a religious one.

They were terrorists right?... which would be violent action for political purposes and all that.

Well, aside from my belief that works and actions are the best way to evangelize, i don't believe that proselytization should be banned -- proved it's held by the same rules and regulations and enforced as other demonstrators on the streets.

Provided there's no infringement on other rights I don't see the problem with it. No one's forcing you to listen to christian radio stations or let Jehovah's Witnesses into your home, and the State has the authority to ban human sacrifices and such.

Wa Alaikum Salaam

Right. One of the few things I know in arabic.

Baraka-llah.

You keep saying "don't push it on me"...do you mean, that when a friend talks to you about God or a Jehova's Witness comes to your door or a guy in the elevator asks if you know Jesus? That that should be outlawed?

Great point.

"If I want to find out about Krispy Kremes, I'll happen upon it in my own time. Don't push it on me."



Mmmm...Krispy Kremes...

It seems that's an understanding you have to come to between your friends and yourself.

I don't think the state can dictate the subject matter two friends are allowed to talk about.

Hey, it's their First Amendment right!

In related news, it is still illegal in the US to burn a cross for the purpose of intimidation. Oh well.

I have don't worry the all know or agree with me on this. I don't think the state can dictate it either but if I meet someone and they start talking about god or preaching to me I tell them to keep it to themselves. Sometimes they get all bent out of shape when you do and try harder to get you to convert.

Proselytizing, isn't it the same as protesting? You're appealing to a somebody for a reason, right? You want them to change their mind on an issue?

Yes, but for them, their politics and religion are one in the same.

I am on the side of the courts on this one. Yes, religious freedom should be santified and protected. Its one thing that makes this country great.

However, if if its in the compelling of the state to stop said expression, then thats the way it is. The courts have only allowed the government todo this in very rare circumstances, such as human or animal sacrifices, illegal drugs, etc.

If your religion says you have to fly a jet into a building, then no, it shouldn't be allowed. The state has a compelling interest in banning that expression. Its like yelling "fire!' in a theater: you have the right to free speech but in this case the state has a compelling reason to ban it.

I think we both agree on this, even if we're using differnt words.

Proselytization is OK - provided it's governed with the same rules as all other public assemblies and demonistrations. Otherwise, if you don't agree what someone legally has the right to say, buck it up and move along. Or sit there and argue with them. Your choice.

BTW, there's an interesting experience of reciprocal religious (and not only) tolerance going on at Neve Shalom - Wahat al-Salam - "obviously", a small minority in the Israel vs. Palestine (etc...!) scenario (which, on the contrary, isn't itself a "minor" issue!).

Personally, I would very much prefer spiritual, rather than "religious" (see distructive power structures, etc.) expression, anyway...

You have yet to answer me. Don't you like my sig?

Depends. Are they in a public place? Maybe. Do you feel threatened? Then certainly.

I believe in religious expression as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

I believe in allowing the war protests (the anti-Bush ones) to continue, since that is religious (belief without evidence) expression, as long as they don't infringe on anyone's rights. I think they demoralize the troops, but I agree with people's right to protest. It's religious expression for some of them, though.

I don't care what you believe come to my door once with your dogma is okay come again after I told you to stuff it is not okay. Also there should be a complete separation between religion and the government. When I politician invokes god's name or anything mildly religious I take offense, I didn't vote (or not vote) for somebody so they could spout their personal religions beliefs or convictions to the masses. The only place religion belongs in is a church, temple, synagogue etc.

What does it mean? Could you give the English translation?

If religion ceased while outside the walls of a place of worship, then there would be very little point for religion. Faith is an empty gesture if it does not carry over into works, which usually hapen outside of church (this doesn't necessarily imply evangelization). I doubt thats what you were implying, but I just wanted to be clear on that point.

However, I understand the sentiment and I would much rather see politicians making decisions based off of rational decisions than 'G-d told me so'. An elected office is no place for a pulpit. Neither do I believe that ethical, moral, and religious considerations are mutually exclusive with rational thought. After all, if an elected official is religious you can't expect him/her to completely ignore those beliefs while in office.

*excellent* posts typoon - totally agree with you.

Sometimes in murder cases where a gay man is murdered the murderer uses the defence of 'homosexual advance' - I am not saying people should kill every bible basher they meet but its only a matter of time.

Freedom of Religion already is limited:

A religion not recognized on more than one continent, *and* recognized by the US Government is an illegal cult.

Any religion can't technically be classified as a cult.

This arguement comes up every so often. Latest being after 9/11 when people wanted Islam to recieve cult status.