Freedom of and From Religion

[duchess0592]

Could you explain what you mean? Your post confused me a little and I don't want to read into what you wrote.

Although Christianity is a religion, religion does not always mean Christianity. If a nativity scene is displayed in a public space, that is promoting Christianity. I think that some towns have gotten around this by allowing any religion to put up a display along with nativity scenes.

Even if they are not Congress, city halls have to abide by laws.

What I mean is that the establishment clause only regulates what congress can do in the way of religion. It has no bearing on if a city can place a nativity scene on its lawn because the city is not congress. they may be promoting a religion but there is no law that they can't. Congress however cannot promote or prohibit it.

Yes, several states have ruled that the people in question can keep the nativity up only if they include decorations from other religions. I do not agree with that ruling and here is why. If I put up a nativity scene in a public place and a Jewish group wants to put a Hanukkah display next to it, I have no problem with that. If a Muslim group wanted to put a Ramadan display next to it I have no problem with that. But when the Government tells me I have to add symbols of other faiths to my display to be PC, I have a problem with that. Just because there is not a Ramadan display or a Hanukkah display does not mean they are not free to put one up nor does it mean that I must put it up for them.

In the terms of the birth control debate I don’t see why the conscience clause is looked down on. It allows birth control to be sold yet allows someone who has certain religious beliefs to not have to sell it and it does not break the 1st amendment.

[Bella99]

What I mean is that the establishment clause only regulates what congress can do in the way of religion. It has no bearing on if a city can place a nativity scene on its lawn because the city is not congress. they may be promoting a religion but there is no law that they can't. Congress however cannot promote or prohibit it.

Yes, several states have ruled that the people in question can keep the nativity up only if they include decorations from other religions. I do not agree with that ruling and here is why. If I put up a nativity scene in a public place and a Jewish group wants to put a Hanukkah display next to it, I have no problem with that. If a Muslim group wanted to put a Ramadan display next to it I have no problem with that. But when the Government tells me I have to add symbols of other faiths to my display to be PC, I have a problem with that. Just because there is not a Ramadan display or a Hanukkah display does not mean they are not free to put one up nor does it mean that I must put it up for them.

In the terms of the birth control debate I don’t see why the conscience clause is looked down on. It allows birth control to be sold yet allows someone who has certain religious beliefs to not have to sell it and it does not break the 1st amendment.

Sorry, a pharmacist's job, the whole of their job is to dispense medications prescribed by physicians. They are not paid to pass judgement on the patients or refuse them medication a doctor has prescribed. If dispensing birth control bothers them, then they need to establish their own company so they can set the rules or do something else. I wouldn't go to work assisting in executions, they shouldn't take the job if they won't perform all of the duties that come with it.

[debrand]

I agree with Bella. If someone does not wish to fill prescriptions for birth control, they should start their own company or go into a different line of work. What if a person's religion taught that minorities were evil? Would that person have the right to demand that they not be forced to work with minorities because of their religion?

[emmiedahl]

What would happen if the pharmacist is against antibiotics? Or cholesterol medication? If they were the only pharmacist in town?

A pharmacist is not paid to make moral judgments about the medications they dispense.

[Austin]

I have no sympathy for the pharmacists who pull this crap. Get another job, asshole.

[doggie]

I have no sympathy for the pharmacists who pull this crap. Get another job, asshole.

They feel ok to discriminate against someone because it offends their beliefs. But this same person would scream persecution if someone said no to them. If you do it for religious reasons it is ok do it for other reasons? no way.

[artmama]

I love the discussion here on this. I have been going around basically in circles on another forum on this topic in the last several days, and it at times has gotten quite ugly.

We already give churches too many special privileges.

[AudreyE]

Yes, several states have ruled that the people in question can keep the nativity up only if they include decorations from other religions. I do not agree with that ruling and here is why. If I put up a nativity scene in a public place and a Jewish group wants to put a Hanukkah display next to it, I have no problem with that. If a Muslim group wanted to put a Ramadan display next to it I have no problem with that. But when the Government tells me I have to add symbols of other faiths to my display to be PC, I have a problem with that. Just because there is not a Ramadan display or a Hanukkah display does not mean they are not free to put one up nor does it mean that I must put it up for them.

In the terms of the birth control debate I don’t see why the conscience clause is looked down on. It allows birth control to be sold yet allows someone who has certain religious beliefs to not have to sell it and it does not break the 1st amendment.

It's not just states that have ruled this. The Supreme Court ruled it, and they added an "entanglement" standard to the law. Specifically, the government is not allowed to be or appear to be entangled with religion in any way. I'd say that's pretty definitive.

As for the conscious clause: you are assuming a woman always has the option of just walking down the street to get the care she requires, if a pharmacist, doctor or hospital will not provide care. Many women in small towns do not have other options.

And consider emergencies, during which women are taken to the nearest hospital. Opponents of women's rights are even trying to make laws which allow hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion on a woman who will die without it AND refuse to transport her to another hospital to save her own life. It is unconscionable that a woman should be denied access to medical procedures to which she is legally entitled, because someone does not feel like providing them.

[mirele]

The establishment clause reads

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of

There is no Freedom from religion in the constitution.

Slight jumping off point but if a city hall wanted to put a nintivity scene up during Chrismas, they have the right to it because they are not congress and they are not making a law.

The 1st Amendment has been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. Consequently the restrictions placed upon Congress in this regard are also applied to the actions of the states, counties, cities and other jurisdictions.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) is an example of such a case. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html

The district court held that the state of Alabama was not prohibited from setting up a state religion (based on a historical argument) and thus allowing school prayer. The appellate court did not buy that argument and reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court.

Justice Stevens wrote for the Court:

Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning 16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District Court's remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no obstacle to Alabama's establishment of a state religion. Before analyzing the precise issue that is presented to us, it is nevertheless appropriate to recall how firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence is the proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States.

Back in my Usenet days, I used the bolded portion of this statement as my tag line. Maybe it's time to do that again.

[valsa]

Yes, several states have ruled that the people in question can keep the nativity up only if they include decorations from other religions. I do not agree with that ruling and here is why. If I put up a nativity scene in a public place and a Jewish group wants to put a Hanukkah display next to it, I have no problem with that. If a Muslim group wanted to put a Ramadan display next to it I have no problem with that. But when the Government tells me I have to add symbols of other faiths to my display to be PC, I have a problem with that. Just because there is not a Ramadan display or a Hanukkah display does not mean they are not free to put one up nor does it mean that I must put it up for them.

It depends on what "public place" you're putting the nativity scene up in. Your own personal property, such as your front yard or in front of your business? You're right- the government has no right to tell you to put other religions' displays up as well (and it has never tried to, so why don’t you hop off your "PC-ness is persecuting me!" pedestal) However, property of the government (federal or state) has different rules that apply to it.

[Guest Anonymous]

The establishment clause reads

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of

There is no Freedom from religion in the constitution.

Slight jumping off point but if a city hall wanted to put a nintivity scene up during Chrismas, they have the right to it because they are not congress and they are not making a law.

THIS! I don't get why it's so hard to understand.

[freejoytoo]

If a pharmacist is uncomfortable handing out birth control then they shouldn't be a pharmacist!

[Bella99]

THIS! I don't get why it's so hard to understand.

What you are forgetting is that your fellow taxpayers may object to the religious display and resent paying for them or having their government appear to endorse them. Government does not just exist to enforce the will of the majority, but to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. Religion and politics are highly volatile compounds and should be stored safely apart.

[JesusFightClub]

Yeah, what freejoytoo said.

Nobody can get by without compromising their beliefs in any way whatsoever. For example, in my private life and my political life I hold, and act on, very strong views. In my work life, I work in the public sector, and I have to do what my tier of the system's political masters want me to do. I am required to be absolutely impartial, not an individual entity imposing her own political beliefs.

It is a violation of the other person's rights if I don't abide by the law and code of conduct, and while I want those both changed radically, right now they aren't. I would be denying fair treatment to someone who has every right to appeal to the present laws of the land, not "the laws in JFC's head, and how she thinks they should be implemented come the revolution."

A couple of times I have run up against situations where I could not do something in good conscience. It was not an illegal act in any case, just something I could not do due to personal beliefs. And these were not my usual duties, but unusual ones for the job. I just said "Sorry, can't. There is a conflict of interest" and someone else was picked.

A pharmacist's usual duty is to hand out birth control. It's not an unusual duty - the pharmacist is not being asked to proselytise for abortion or sex outside marriage, just to hand over a prescription. So this irritates the fuck out of me. If they knew they were strongly opposed to filling prescriptions for very common medicines, why take the job?

There's (a multitude) of reasons why I don't work for the police. I don't work for the Borders Agency (UKBA) although they were hiring at my level for better salaries than mine is now and I was desperate for a job. What is hard to understand about "If you absolutely can't do a major aspect of the job due to your own personal beliefs, don't apply in the first place"?

What if these pharmacists have to give methadone to heroin addicts? Round here they have to watch them swallow the dose (and make sure it IS swallowed, and not reused...) If giving out birth control hurts the sensitive fee-fee, try that.

Sorry for rant. I feel very strongly about integrity in any kind of service role to the public. Everyone should be treated equally, with respect and kindness, and I hate it when I see "my conscience trumps your rights".

[Rosa]

What I mean is that the establishment clause only regulates what congress can do in the way of religion. It has no bearing on if a city can place a nativity scene on its lawn because the city is not congress. they may be promoting a religion but there is no law that they can't. Congress however cannot promote or prohibit it.

Yes, several states have ruled that the people in question can keep the nativity up only if they include decorations from other religions.

I don't know where you live, but my state has a religious nonpreference clause in the STATE constitution that has nothing to do with Congress.

Here it is, article 1, section 16, Minnesota Constitution:

Sec. 16. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; NO PREFERENCE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT OR MODE OF WORSHIP. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.

That is why, in my state, it's unconstitutional under the State constitution to have a Nativity scene on public property; it compels some nonbelievers to attend a place of worship (unless you're contending that the Nativity scene is not a sacred symbol that people worship), compels all nonbelievers to support it with tax dollars, and gives preference to a single religious mode of worship.

[DarkAnts]

I cannot fathom why it is so difficult for religious people to understand that public policy cannot be driven by religious belief. We are a pluralistic society and represent more religions than we can count. Any time I have asked a person who proclaims to be against gay marriage to back their position after taking religion out of the picture, they can't. They resort to an "ewww" factor, which is irrelevant.

Why is it soooo incredibly hard to understand that:

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one

If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it

The only real argument, in my view, against any of these issues is religiously-based.

I say to them: Have your religion and let everyone else have their beliefs. They don't affect you so how do you explain your virulent attitudes about these issues other than you're just sticking your nose in the business of others? No one is going to force you to marry a person of the same gender, no one is going to force you to have an abortion, and no one is going to force-feed you oral contraceptives, so go on about your life and let others do the same.

May of them dont understand the constitution. They quote the first adamant Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and take it literally. They think it just means that congress cant require everyone to practice a certain religion. They ignore the exclusionary rule as interpreted by the US supreme court. Some examples of the US supreme court ruling this way are as follows. The most relevant case for this is Larkin v. Grendel's Den. Churches were allowed to prohibit restaurants and bars from getting alcohol permits within 500 ft of a church or school. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it substituted religious decision-making for public legislative authority. This is exactly what the senate is trying to do with the birth control "panel". They did not allow any women or doctors to be on the primary panel. They only allowed christian religious leaders that were against birth control.

[Guest Anonymous]

What you are forgetting is that your fellow taxpayers may object to the religious display and resent paying for them or having their government appear to endorse them. Government does not just exist to enforce the will of the majority, but to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. Religion and politics are highly volatile compounds and should be stored safely apart.

I disagree. Nobody is grabbing people by the hair and dragging them to church. I would feel the same way if it were a Star of David, Menorah, or any other religious symbol on display. Besides, the displaying of such objects are not only religious, they are cultural as well.

[Rosa]

they're still paying for the space the display is.

If a group wants to display a nativity scene, let them pay for some land and put it up. Nothing stopping them. That's why the country is littered with churches, church signs, crosses, and church-lawn nativity scenes.

Also, Geniebell, what state do you live in? Let me check the state constitution for you, for any issues you may have with your own city.

[valsa]

I disagree. Nobody is grabbing people by the hair and dragging them to church. I would feel the same way if it were a Star of David, Menorah, or any other religious symbol on display. Besides, the displaying of such objects are not only religious, they are cultural as well.

Doesn't matter. The government cannot support a religion on land that is paid for and maintained by tax payer money. There is plenty of non-government land these displays can be put on that does not infringe on people's constitutional rights.

[debrand]

Do some people have a problem understanding the difference between public and private land? It amazes me that this would be an issue. There are many places that individuals can display religious symbols. For example, a business person can have a Star of David in their window, a family can place a nativity scene in their yard but those same religous items can not be put up on property that is mantained with tax payer funds.

Why is it so upsetting to a segment of Christians that a nativity scene, for example, can't be displayed in front of city hall?

[Bella99]

Doesn't matter. The government cannot support a religion on land that is paid for and maintained by tax payer money. There is plenty of non-government land these displays can be put on that does not infringe on people's constitutional rights.

Thank you. Espouse any belief you want on your own space and dime. Don't demand I contribute to it.

[Austin]

Do some people have a problem understanding the difference between public and private land? It amazes me that this would be an issue. There are many places that individuals can display religious symbols. For example, a business person can have a Star of David in their window, a family can place a nativity scene in their yard but those same religous items can not be put up on property that is mantained with tax payer funds.

Why is it so upsetting to a segment of Christians that a nativity scene, for example, can't be displayed in front of city hall?

Christians are free to put a nativity display up on their own lawns. And any church can put one up on their own property. There is NO reason for these types of symbols to be foisted on everyone on the taxpayer dime.

[Guest Anonymous]

Do some people have a problem understanding the difference between public and private land? It amazes me that this would be an issue. There are many places that individuals can display religious symbols. For example, a business person can have a Star of David in their window, a family can place a nativity scene in their yard but those same religous items can not be put up on property that is mantained with tax payer funds.

Why is it so upsetting to a segment of Christians that a nativity scene, for example, can't be displayed in front of city hall?

I'll answer that with a question. Why is it so upsetting to see such displays? Many of which are donated, not paid for with taxpayer money. At least that's the case in several towns I know of. As for the displaying of religious symbols in businesses, that is gradually being turned into a no-no as well. What next....ban Bibles and Churches because seeing one is offensive? How about Christmas parades? Or How about banning any and all religious holidays? Sorry, but I feel we are now at a point where it's becoming freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

[valsa]

I'll answer that with a question. Why is it so upsetting to see such displays? Many of which are donated, not paid for with taxpayer money. At least that's the case in several towns I know of. As for the displaying of religious symbols in businesses, that is gradually being turned into a no-no as well.

Legality is not based on people's feelings. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If an asshole gets murdered and no one is upset about it, should the murder laws not apply?

FYI, the government is not at all trying to stop businesses from displaying religious symbols. However, individual customers have an absolute right to protest any displays businesses put up and, like most entities devoted to making money, businesses aren't putting up religious decorations as much in response to that. Notice how the government is not a part of that interaction at all.

What next....ban Bibles and Churches because seeing one is offensive? How about Christmas parades? Or How about banning any and all religious holidays?

This is just straight up stupid.

Sorry, but I feel we are now at a point where it's becoming freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion

Governmental freedom from religion is exactly how it's supposed to be.