• 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!

The First Amendment to the American Constitution

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
It is significant to me that the Christians from America seem to feel they have the right, even obligation to demand that everyone believe as they do. I don't know if Canada has a similar law, and I do not know about the UK.

The First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Having come FROM a very conservative Christianity, I can attest that the mind set in some sects is that everyone should follow them. And, in certain places, Islam is the same way.

That is why I published the "Jesus Is Not God" thread. I wanted to expose the closed mindedness, and assert that in some cases, it is a violation of the laws of this nation.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
In my country where secularism is stated in Art. 8 of our Constitution, all religions are expected to submit to the secular law and the secular state.

Any religion who does not, won't be recognized by the state
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
In my country where secularism is stated in Art. 8 of our Constitution, all religions are expected to submit to the secular law and the secular state.

Any religion who does not, won't be recognized by the state
That sounds very useful and practical.

Does it even apply within the city limits of Rome?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is significant to me that the Christians from America seem to feel they have the right, even obligation to demand that everyone believe as they do. I don't know if Canada has a similar law, and I do not know about the UK.

The First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Having come FROM a very conservative Christianity, I can attest that the mind set in some sects is that everyone should follow them. And, in certain places, Islam is the same way.

That is why I published the "Jesus Is Not God" thread. I wanted to expose the closed mindedness, and assert that in some cases, it is a violation of the laws of this nation.
I take very seriously this Amendment (and the American concept of Creator given human rights in general). Freedom of Religion, like freedom of speech, comes as a direct result of freedom of thought. It is fundamental. The US may have a Christian culture, but as we have all been taught in civics classes, democracy is "majority rule *with minority rights protected.*" That means that despite the Christian culture and preference, those with minority religious beliefs cannot be discriminated against. They cannot be forced to pray in manners offensive to their beliefs or engage in foreign religious practices. Schools may teach about religions, but may not teach practice of any religion. The list goes on.

As a Jew, I have experienced both the intolerence of the few, and the religious freedom of the constitution. Yes, I have even been accosted in the street for being a Jew. I put up with anti-semitism regularly in chatrooms. But I'm free to keep kosher, to observe the Sabbath, to worship in my synagogue without fear of government reprisal. Indeed, when any synagogue is attacked, the community (including Christians) and government are quick to come to Jewish aid.

That is American civil liberties.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It is significant to me that the Christians from America seem to feel they have the right, even obligation to demand that everyone believe as they do.

That happens with exclusive religions.

I don't know if Canada has a similar law, and I do not know about the UK.

It is not the same. Canada has placed limits, and increased those limits (PC), over the years. 1a provides more freedom than the Bill of Rights does in Canada.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
This is Not the Problem Ellen! This is not The Problem Ellen Because 95% of Americans would not even be capable in Today's type of society of "Forcing" religious adherence, ridiculous! No! Today's problem Child is "Laicite"! Everyone thinks we have Laicite. People DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the United States freedom of Religion and what they Actually Believe in is the French Principle Of Laicite.

Listen. I never told a student named Zhao Any religious discussion. I never told a student niu, or a student Benson, or many Professors about Any religion. The Park Student I ever talked about religion first made me face her and Acknowledge her Presbyterianism in a Tenant of how we are proceeding. I talked Only to professors about religion who made specific topics on religious adherence and only on those topics concerning myself and Religious Adherence.

These people believe we have the Freedom from the Public of Religious Adherence! Presidents all the time run on their religious Adherence, Especially when Eisenhower ran on a new religious direction, specifically for Presbyterianism too.

These Professors are not FREE To SAY they Do not Want to hear anything else from the Bible and mitigate or negotiate any of my issues they are Not FREE in the public to do that. That is Laicite. They cannot toss under inferiority a discussion point of a materialistic or atheistic materialism perspective next to anything organized at the university in any other moral perspective. These discriminations are supposed to be very well protected in education.

Laicite in France prevents anyone and anything organizing under denominational religions which they feel like would tear apart the Nation of France itself with the religious struggles. I never at any time strayed from intellectualism, I Never engaged militarism. This is Today's Society then! They are at fault totally! I Never feel different on this, I pursue the issue when allowed.
 

arthra

Baha'i
I like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You need to place this in historical context. Up to the writing of the Constitution, through most of human history, nearly all humans were under some form of monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is where a small group of people, generation after generation, have all the power and resources; divine right of kings. This included the power over life and death. The King of England, who had power over the 13 colonies, had commandeered the Church of England and was even changing the rules of religion, to suit his secular needs.

The first Amendment reflected a vision of the future where all the taboos, needed to maintain monarchy rule, were lifted. The Colonies were in a unique place to separate. The French Revolution went one step further and eliminated monarchy rule with the guillotine. They had to co-exist which did not work for them.

Freedom of speech meant you could complain about the government without going to jail. Or you could worship God, your way, without being harassed. Or you could assemble in the square, to discuss modern events and a better way for the future.

In terms of American History and continued challenges to the Constitution, slavery placed many people, especially the Democrats, in a position that simulated monarchy rule, in a microcosm. They owned slaves and had the power of life and death. They could also control all aspects of their lives, including teaching their version of religion. The idea of acting like a monarch in their little world became an addiction fantasy.

This modern Democrat version is the big brother society, which is similar to a return to a monarchy. This is why Socialism is popular with the Democrats. Socialism eliminates the wealth and power of the free marketeers; donor class, so all the power becomes centralized in Washington. Then big monarchy get to decide the fate of the masses.

The Democrat strategy began with criticizing all religion, so lack of freedom religion becomes the default. The King of England did the same thing, except against his own religion; liberalism. It also begins with commandeering language; PC, so words themselves become taboo or ambiguous. This slowly erodes freedom of speech by placing gaps in language and by forcing conformity to memes and phrases.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Further along with my point on this thread I wanted to make, instead of making my own thread, People need to respect and understand Reasonable Acommodation then. The new 60's employment act puts together no discrimination on creed, race, national origin, ethnicity. Are we giving Muslims 3 prays a day or is that not Reasonable? Its not bothering you besides that you are not used to it. Individuals like Andrew Jackson could still be under the authority of a Religion While he was in office, it wasn't his obligation From the Office, it could be what he took To the office.

I really want a discussion on Reasonable Acommodation. The United States doesn't practice Laicite I put elsewhere. It is not irrelevant that a conduct of common understood nature is Taken to offices. The Schools have no obligation to disclaim religion in public practice and being practiced in their colleges. The obligation stands at accepting these edifices of personhood with all the other types in the 60's discrimination definitions. The University can help students present a prayer mat to a student for example? I think they are far less than reasonable accommodation on Most occasions, mixing in intellectual Secular leanings in education, the bar of Reasonable Acommodation is reduced to Nothing. This is something they'll all get over, even having any worldwide recognized religions.

Exactly right that if we back up to Historical America which you find means exactly Nothing. We don't have "history" the Brits say. At the Revolution its barely pushing off the Brits forcing Anglicanism on any British officer I read. Scots and others would actually be discriminated. I think its largely a myth the Scots were allowed their own officers. I don't think that's the case.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
I'm free to see that the Presbyterians agree with the Anglicans at critical junctures of a National Anthem God Save the Queen, the tenets of gender that the civil American society worked extremely hard to shake out of their institutions like Princeton. We are totally free to have been pursuing personal utility and best options available in our schools with any studygroups Presbyterians organize, socially outgoing Presbyterianism, which is daily reported and monitored by parents, professors, and families. The University put a grade on every attendance, parents were given the times of all my meetings seminar, coursework, and organized study. I was never aware of anything else in my totally public, gainful, and safe behavior.

We're required to meet fairly and judiciously and without bias as I did in our colleges with reasonable accommodating sociable behavior that is under attack in every facet for a decade and mischaracterized. First off, is these groups promote charitable funding, the whole time, moral behavior, promoted work-life balanced attention we can take directly to professors or parents. They accused me at the age of 20 having no examples but life-long marriages without faults in my family, having never and never presenting any girlfriends or personal wishes, having never pushed any wishes on the studygroup, of $200 which is what the Korean culture would think reasonable to pay in these private tutoring, was a Prostitutional Proposition, and that isn't some maximum this already huge Consideration, when the planned example in the Group already was how our shared professor Dr Liu, now of California, had asked class for a new apartment and her group also was asking for accommodation work-life.

Scotland is an ancient homeland that repelled Roman rule or Christianity for 2000 years, Korea is a similar Religion and people, and there is reasonable accommodation to not Force Koreans to repeat Japanese economic aggressions with millions abusing legal systems, I think there's a strong positive claim in the very act and publicity of transparent act itself of the American land which welcomes the Abroad Korean person in the giftful abundance, rather than the usual appearance of market competition and friction between races on the "free market" the Japanese might claim to use. Did anyone note the Sa-I-Gu catastrophe, and its because the Black Neighborhood felt that Koreans had bought and economicaly gained business in their neighborhood, then its us Americans who feel entitled to burn exclusively al Korean Business, the damages to "economically allocating free market land" to Koreans today would be $300 to every Korean American. Judge Ito during the OJ SImpson trial , well, every Korean court would also be a Japanese Judge, and those aren't Korean systems anymore, that 2 million foreigners by piecemeal and in each case, in the aggregate, end up owning all the Korean land.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
t is significant to me that the Christians from America seem to feel they have the right, even obligation to demand that everyone believe as they do. I don't know if Canada has a similar law, and I do not know about the UK.
Canada's situation is... complicated.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaims freedom of religion and conscience and freedom of speech as fundamental rights, and establishes the right of equality before the law without discrimination. However:

- these rights can be violated if the government expressly decides to do so by invoking the "notwithstanding clause."

- the Charter doesn't supersede other parts of the Constitution, so we still have things like taxpayer-funded religious schools, a head of state who's head of a church, and a legal prohibition on Catholics becoming our head of state.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Thanks Penguin. That may explain what I was looking into, the situation about the United Church of Canada and Uniting Church of Australia, or was it, -ing, -ed... I don't really care.. Anyway! Technically the Commonwealth Establishments seem to be erasing history and forming National Churches which is something I don't have time to figure out.

I joined anything with a rigid predictable outlook at college, Koreans definitely joined for Western Nations, Western Nations that have shrunk what they joined by 2/3rds since the Korean War! The "Forgotten War" where clearly would be a Federal violation to have as much media on it as the Vietnam War, we clearly intend to leave the people helpless.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Thanks Penguin. That may explain what I was looking into, the situation about the United Church of Canada and Uniting Church of Australia, or was it, -ing, -ed... I don't really care.. Anyway! Technically the Commonwealth Establishments seem to be erasing history and forming National Churches which is something I don't have time to figure out.

I joined anything with a rigid predictable outlook at college, Koreans definitely joined for Western Nations, Western Nations that have shrunk what they joined by 2/3rds since the Korean War! The "Forgotten War" where clearly would be a Federal violation to have as much media on it as the Vietnam War, we clearly intend to leave the people helpless.
The United Church of Canada isn't Canada's national church; we don't have a national church.

... but for - IMO ridiculous - legal reasons, the head of state of Canada is also the head of the Church of England.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
You are exploding my mind right now. I have no clue what you could possibly mean. The head of the Church of England for all 500 years is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Religious Supremacy in its final form accepted a woman, Elizabeth I, could be Governor of the Church as Head was reserved to men such as the Archbishop, whom is selected in turn, by the Kingdom. What is that ridiculous bit, are Canadians even Anglicans? Anglicans in Canada is 3rd after the United Church, I see that after looking it up.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Ugh, we are talking in a circle. The Act of Supremacy allowed a Woman , Queen Elizabeth I, looking as an excommunicated Calvinist, so on, a balanced Church not pointing people directly to war Catholic/Reformed, the first loyalty in England wasn't the religion, it was to the Kingdom. She and No King CAN be the "HEAD" of the Church of England, that's the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Kings are Governors in that they are electing to office an Archbishop of Canterbury.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Ugh, we are talking in a circle.
Speak for yourself.

The Act of Supremacy allowed a Woman , Queen Elizabeth I, looking as an excommunicated Calvinist, so on, a balanced Church not pointing people directly to war Catholic/Reformed, the first loyalty in England wasn't the religion, it was to the Kingdom. She and No King CAN be the "HEAD" of the Church of England, that's the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Kings are Governors in that they are electing to office an Archbishop of Canterbury.
Meh. If you wanted to educate yourself on this, you could have. I'm not going to make it my job to educate you against your will.
 
Top