Prayer is being stamped out of public by non-Christians - any public arena where the government has any sway.

If I was a Muslim, I would have a Muslim background, but I don't know how I would look at the writings of Mohammed and say they are consistent with each other.  I would wonder why we even have the Old Testament books in our religion if we were saying that parts are true, parts are 'corrupted'. 

So hopefully, I would eventually be witnessed to by a believer who could answer those questions and would allow me to be saved!

You do not seem interested in praying in public Jythier? Not in the grocery store, the bowling alley, the mall or any other actual public venue … why not? People normally spend much more of their time in these places than a court house (hopefully) and they usually aren't working. I do not know of anything or anyway to stop you from walking into any building of your choice and praying. Is there some reason to stop all other traffic or business activity to enable this praying, I don’t understand? Maybe this is because I am talking to you and not about Christianity. America is ~ 80% Christian and ~ 9% atheist /agnostic … what in the world America do atheists control?

 

Why is it absurd?

 

You're redirecting my point.  The prayer in question was a standard part of the public meeting, but was removed due to outside influences.  Banned.  Corporate prayer, we're talking about - there's also solo prayer which you can do yourself any time.

Come on now, obviously you must be talking about some behavioral changes that I cannot associate with or even identify. As an atheist living the good corrupt life of a debased woman, what behaviors of mine would not require modifications to convert to Christianity ... none at all??? I don’t at all see how such simple things like this can even be debatable. I am not going to play like this Jythier because it is pointless. I am not redirecting anything as I have repeatedly asked you to clarify your statement … additional giveaways are the statements I made telling you I didn’t understand. I am trying to converse with you about your infringed upon religious freedoms and you keep pointing me at Christianity as if you WANT me to group all Christians in one lump the way you group all atheist in one lump. There is nothing in the Constitution that favors any religion over another and there is nothing there to give the Christian sects any preferential treatment, how could it?

Slavery was an accepted form of torture with the Christian ‘Churches’ in the thick of it. It is no longer acceptable because of secularism, not religion. Should we bring it back because it used to be an accepted practice? Even in the short lifespan of humans, most grow to some extent beyond their young and often foolishly immature understanding of things. But it seems that for many, some things never change even after thousands of years. But reality just keeps marching on and everything changes because of that, with a few notable exceptions.

So you are talking about ‘corporate prayer’ huh, thought you made that up but Google says otherwise, hum again. Well, after researching this some I see no reason to rethink my stance. The bible offers no more ‘support’ for group prayer than it does individual prayer. The actual real corporate laws (of real corporations) don’t support this religious ploy either nor does the Constitution. Where does this authority come from such that it guaranties you the right to interrupt business meetings or whatnot? To save you some time (as if you would actually look it up), I have posted a couple of web pages you could quickly review first:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/corporate_prayer

http://www.gotquestions.org/corporate-prayer.html

PS - The post reads 'Freedom of religion' and Christianity just isn't the only religion to consider by the secular state. Even if you consider them all nonsensical as I do, they have just as much right as you by any standard ... not to be bothered by Christianity at work.

 

Like I said, call me if you want to discuss something, or not!

I have read this thread with interest, being one of those militant unbelievers who believe as Christopher Hitchens wrote in 'God is Not Great' that religion poisons everything. I was particularly interested in the postings around the idea that the US constitution guarantees the freedom to follow a 'zany' religion. As an outsider, being British I can't say that is the impression I get either in the States or in the UK. Let me give an example: you have a US based religion called the Scientologists and as you know Tom Cruise is a famous member of this 'church'. In the UK whenever Tom Cruise is mentioned (been in the papers a lot recently because of the split from Katie Holmes) Scientology is trashed, ridiculed, accused of being a false religion, of being 'loony' because of the belief in aliens or Thetans or whatever the hell they are.

Now, I do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, whether they are Catholic fairies, Hindu fairies or Jewish fairies etc. I cannot see why Scientology is any more crazy than any other religion based on nothing more than faith and words written thousands of years ago by more primitive people who still thought the sun was the centre of the universe and had no idea that dinosaurs once walked the earth.

In respect of the argument about guaranteeing the freedom to practise a faith I think two things: (i) it is limited to those faiths that those in power agree to, and (ii) believing in something without any evidence is not a good qualification for public office.

Keep religion out of public office and if people must worship some god or other then let them do it in the privacy of their own homes.

Hello there and welcome to the fray. When they speak of religious freedom they are of course only concerned with christianity because ‘all OTHER religions’ are not considered religions at all (how convenient) …  so they only see one, theirs.  Oh these people will pay lip service to the others, but they are only interested in their own dogma. They will attempt to usurp the Constitution or any other secular document and try to bend it to their selfish interests. The problem is the clergy and the sheeple just do what they are told to do without question and no proof for anything is even desired. Pat Condell is a fellow countryman of yours and has this nonsense down pat.

The arrogance of clergy   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxmLJ14mNA

Ditto to GFTess, Welcome to the fray!

Ah, who is "they"? Not the Founders and not any of us in this discussion.

In reply #12, I wrote: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every one free exercise of religion.

And history demonstrates the First Amendment became a vehicle to promote pluralism of religions. Even the early courts acknowledged that America was pluralistic of other religions other than Christianity.

The First Amendment's prohibition of "an establishment of religion" was designed to restrict neither religious beliefs nor religious activities, but only the federal establishment of a national religion. After that,the issue of religion was left to the States.

That's mighty generous of you with our inalienable freedom! NOT. But this sentiment of yours is the same one we hear from the Secular and Atheist Humanists here in America.  

Coming from England, have you tried that attitude with the fast growing Muslim population there? 

 

 

Good we are in agreement. I also don't believe in fairies.

 

What do you think empowers the second part to supersede the first part? How do you define a religion and what in the world do you think "... free exercise thereof" means? Do you know what this would mean to a fundamental Muslim if religiously unlimited and legal? You do understand that the bible condones the stoning of homosexuals, wayward children etc.? How far are you willing to stretch this nonsense in your view and those of other religions? If you cannot understand that a society must set limits on the radical elements of every organization, geese, then I just don't know what to say??? Of course you are only thinking of the good christians (Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc.) not the bad or corrupt or the disingenuous ones ... naw, they wouldn’t abuse an open ticket to justify anything religiously, surely. I do not understand what you want with your ploy for “the freedom of religion”?

 

You killed Tinkerbell!

I have the same attitude with each and every religion - why should someone's belief in the supernatural play a part in government?

By the way I've always been fascinated by the way each and every religion claims to be the true faith. A few thousand years ago everyone worshipped the sun, the it was multiple gods then it became monotheism... so difficult to keep up!

GFTESS,

Your # 86 contains some good, thought provoking questions.

I don't think that the second part supersedes the first part.

Yes, for sure, defining terms is very important.

By Religion, I mean the act by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, obedience and worship due to Him, and in the way prescribed by Him.

The dictionary definition of "religion" is 1. Belief in God or gods. 2. Worship of God or gods. 3. A particular system of religious belief and worship. 

I would say my definition reflects #3 of the dictionary definition. My particular system of religious belief is the way prescribed by God, namely Catholicism. For the Muslim, it would be Islam; for the Protestant, that would be any one of a thousand of sects; for the Secularist and Atheist, that would be the practice of Secular or Atheistic Humanism; their god is man. For the Satanist, their god is the devil. 

Now, on to defining "religious freedom" as per the First Amendment...

Religion, the free exercise thereof--might mean the physical freedom to exercise (to practice ) your religion (whatever that particular system of religious belief it might be) unencumbered by the Federal Government. This would mean the government can't pass a law and you can't be arrested and thrown in jail for going to church, temple or mosque. That happens under Communism or other totalitarian States.

OR Religion, the free exercise thereof ---might mean that a person is conscienciously free to choose and practice any religion of their choice.

Or it could be both.

AND THUS THE CONUNDRUM that you bring up in your next question when you ask,

As I see it, by Religion, the free exercise thereof, the Founders were encouraging religious pluralism and (possibly unintentionally) were fostering Indifferentism (the notion that all religions with their competing claims are all equally valid and should be freely chosen and practiced).

I think it's a huge error that will eventually bring America's demise...the culture's going to collapse because from the notion of religious freedom is that there should be no religious freedom, at least when it comes to some religions.   

What do you expect, I'm a big mouth, but only one vote.

 

And in this day and age under the dictatorship of moral relativism, what is and who are the "radical elements"?

 

 

The courts have deemed Secular Humanism a Religion. And if you've ever read the Humanist Manifestos I and II, you will know exactly what their religious belief system is based. Why should the religious beliefs and dogmatic claims of Secular and Atheistic Humanism that support abortion, homosexual 'marriage' and other evils play a part in Government?

Can the government that supports the religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism really be expected to protect the First Amendment rights of those who practice Christianity?

That's exactly what we are up against today and the focus of Jythier's blog.