Freedom of Religion

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.