• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Confession about free exercise of religion

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I thought a reason to vote for Donald Trump was that secularism was attacking the free exercise of religion in the public square.

But I don't see it! It's fine!

I still like his policies, but this is just not something I see myself even if it's potentially a threat.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I thought a reason to vote for Donald Trump was that secularism was attacking the free exercise of religion in the public square.

But I don't see it! It's fine!

I still like his policies, but this is just not something I see myself even if it's potentially a threat.
How is secularism a threat? It's what ensures your freedom of religion to believe what you will without there being any sort of official state religion. Secularism both maximizes and best preserves the freedom of religion (and many other rights, such as free speech, that may be explicitly prohibited per religious dogma).
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
How is secularism a threat? It's what ensures your freedom of religion to believe what you will without there being any sort of official state religion. Secularism both maximizes and best preserves the freedom of religion (and many other rights, such as free speech, that may be explicitly prohibited per religious dogma).
It all depends on what you mean by secularism. Presently there is a secularist movement that has as its goal the elimination of religion in the public square. This is absurd -- it is definitely NOT what our founding fathers wanted.

We have two clauses.
1. No establishment of a religion, aka no state church, and no favoring of one religion over another. Great we dont have a problem with this.
2. No prohibition of the free excercise. This is where we are having problems. Laws are being passed which interfere with the following of religious conscience for example. And prohibitive laws are being passed which limit the practice of relition to the private sphere--a clear violation of the free exercise clause.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It all depends on what you mean by secularism. Presently there is a secularist movement that has as its goal the elimination of religion in the public square. This is absurd -- it is definitely NOT what our founding fathers wanted.

We have two clauses.
1. No establishment of a religion, aka no state church, and no favoring of one religion over another. Great we dont have a problem with this.

Well...I might quibble on that. But let's leave it for this post.

2. No prohibition of the free excercise. This is where we are having problems. Laws are being passed which interfere with the following of religious conscience for example. And prohibitive laws are being passed which limit the practice of relition to the private sphere--a clear violation of the free exercise clause.

There has always been issues with this, in terms of practical implications and enforcement. A quick review of Native American history would prove this. What particular issues lead you to believe 'we are having problems' that are worse than those previously encountered?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In the workplace, people can often get made fun of over their religions and even though it's illegal they can still get fired. I've seen plenty of workplace discrimination that was illegal.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
2. No prohibition of the free excercise. This is where we are having problems. Laws are being passed which interfere with the following of religious conscience for example. And prohibitive laws are being passed which limit the practice of relition to the private sphere--a clear violation of the free exercise clause.
It has been made necessary as its been ised to justify and protect dangerous and fatal ends, especially for children who needlessly suffer and die as religious parents are under no obligation to take their kid to a doctor if they religion prohibits it. Measles is coming back because of excessive freedom of religion. Children are ill prepared for the world due to excessive freedom of religion. Adults even are often denied rights due to excessive freedom of religion that extends up to preserving discrimination as a right for those who are prejudice as a part of their "sincerely held religious beliefs."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It all depends on what you mean by secularism. Presently there is a secularist movement that has as its goal the elimination of religion in the public square.
There is? This is news to me.

This is absurd -- it is definitely NOT what our founding fathers wanted.

We have two clauses.
1. No establishment of a religion, aka no state church, and no favoring of one religion over another. Great we dont have a problem with this.
2. No prohibition of the free excercise. This is where we are having problems. Laws are being passed which interfere with the following of religious conscience for example. And prohibitive laws are being passed which limit the practice of relition to the private sphere--a clear violation of the free exercise clause.
The Founding Fathers most definitely intended to limit the exercise or religion in certain ways, and they did it to foster and protect religion.

They recognized that one of the biggest threats to religious freedom is some other religion with influence over government, so they made a deliberate decision to keep religion out of government as a means to ensuring freedom of religious expression.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Well...I might quibble on that. But let's leave it for this post.



There has always been issues with this, in terms of practical implications and enforcement. A quick review of Native American history would prove this. What particular issues lead you to believe 'we are having problems' that are worse than those previously encountered?
People of faith have been forced to do things that violate their consciences, such as perform abortions or assist, or provide services for gay marriages. Fortunately the Supreme Court is now taking this in hand, and so the pendulum is swinging back again.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It has been made necessary as its been ised to justify and protect dangerous and fatal ends, especially for children who needlessly suffer and die as religious parents are under no obligation to take their kid to a doctor if they religion prohibits it. Measles is coming back because of excessive freedom of religion. Children are ill prepared for the world due to excessive freedom of religion. Adults even are often denied rights due to excessive freedom of religion that extends up to preserving discrimination as a right for those who are prejudice as a part of their "sincerely held religious beliefs."
Exceptions must be made for the life and health of a child. These are not the cases I'm talking about. I'm talking about people of conscience being forced to do abortions, or to provide services for gay marriages.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There is? This is news to me.


The Founding Fathers most definitely intended to limit the exercise or religion in certain ways, and they did it to foster and protect religion.

They recognized that one of the biggest threats to religious freedom is some other religion with influence over government, so they made a deliberate decision to keep religion out of government as a means to ensuring freedom of religious expression.
The biggest threat to religion today is not some other religion, but aggressive secularism that wants to relegate any expression of religion to the privacy of one's home or church, keeping it out of the pubic square.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Exceptions must be made for the life and health of a child. These are not the cases I'm talking about. I'm talking about people of conscience being forced to do abortions, or to provide services for gay marriages.
No one who is against abortions is going to get the training to perform them. It would be like someone training to be a gynecologist but having moral objections to touching and seeing the genitals of a woman.
No one is forcing priests to marry gays or even allow them in their churches.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Exceptions must be made for the life and health of a child. These are not the cases I'm talking about. I'm talking about people of conscience being forced to do abortions, or to provide services for gay marriages.
Now, if it's someone like a pharmacist, they went to school and took an oath to serve people, not promote their own personal beliefs. If they are unable to fulfill this duty without discrimination, prejudice, and selfishness they are not in a suitable line of employment and step aside for someone who will ensure people get the medications their doctor prescribed to them. And I do believe it should be criminal to refuse to fill a valid prescription. A pharmacist is not a doctor, they are not the patients doctor, and it's none of their business and it is not their place to determine someone else's treatment based on their own personal sense of morality. It is unacceptable that it even happens, and it's blatantly disrespectful, negligent, and an abuse of power to do so.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
People of faith have been forced to do things that violate their consciences, such as perform abortions or assist, or provide services for gay marriages. Fortunately the Supreme Court is now taking this in hand, and so the pendulum is swinging back again.

You didn't address my questions or point at all...
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The biggest threat to religion today is not some other religion, but aggressive secularism that wants to relegate any expression of religion to the privacy of one's home or church, keeping it out of the pubic square.
Whenever religious people (Christian in most examples) face the thread of an other religion (e.g. Satanism) or secularism, they usually go for secularism.
It's not religious freedom you're after, it's religious privilege if you don't like a Baphomet statue beside your 10 commandments monument.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The biggest threat to religion today is not some other religion, but aggressive secularism that wants to relegate any expression of religion to the privacy of one's home or church, keeping it out of the pubic square.
Good. We're Christians and Muslims and Jews and Satanists and Atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and Wiccans and First Nations and Kemetics and Luciferians and so many other things that we just don't have the room in public sectors to accommodate them all, and all or none at all is the most fair way of doing it.
 
Top