I think that religion, especially Christianity, has enjoyed privileges DESPITE
the First Amendment and these are now increasingly being challenged, as they
should be. We truly are getting better at fulfilling the promise of our
Constitution. People will continue to be free to believe what they choose.
What is getting restricted is the capacity to impose those beliefs on others.
The better we do this, the stronger the right to religious freedom will be.
Yawn, religion in America has never been more free. Anybody catch that story
recently about a temple being built in Philadelphia? How about the 100's if
not 1000's of temples, mosques and church's currently under
construction in America. Doesn't look like there's much of war on
religious freedom now does it. Indifference, maybe, war, definitely not. But the
indifference is probably what is really bothering the religious types. Get used
If Governor Jindal's drawing fire, then he must be over the right target.
Question for conservatives – when you see an article like this that states
for the thousandth time that you are being attacked and there is a
“war” on something, do you ever ask yourself, “hmmm, I wonder
if the ubiquitous use of the word “war” is hyperbolic and meant as a
calculated (and cynical) attempt to gain my support by bypassing my frontal
cortex and going straight to my limbic brain?” Or words to
that effect…And does it ever bother you that so much of your
media talks to you this way – like they think you’re too dumb to
have a rational conversation so they just want to get you mad (or scared) all
the time?Just curious…
What a made up controversy! It's just the far right religious
conservatives, who themselves are happy to impose their will on others. This
message may sell to radicalized right wing extremists for the nomination, but it
won't sell the America. This is pandering and nothing more.
@Karen R makes a nice point. Religious groups who have had the
social and political power to have their way without meaningful opposition do
seem shocked at finally hearing the voices of those they've long dominated.
An exercise in empathy will be required for them to understand why
that dominance has been painful and unjust to others.Another DesNews
article today said this of religious freedom:"[it] doesn't mean
advocating a certain belief over others, he said, but accommodating religious
freedom and diversity."Utah's marriage equality situation
is prime example where empathy and a willingness to share is needed.
The number of religious institutions is not a sole indicator of religious
freedom. Gov. Jindal makes a great point that freedom of religion is not just
the freedom to worship. I comprehends freedom of conscious and to believe what
you will. Many beliefs today (not just the question of homosexual marriage) are
ridiculed by media and society to the point that they have and will continue to
make it into legislation in order to please constituents.Freedom of
religion is clearly in danger. So long as government is free to define moral
freedoms such as right to free contraceptives or the right to marry whomever you
want (as examples of more current issues and issues to come), church and state
will always be at odds. These differences of opinions will not stop at your
local cake shop or Hobby Lobby, despite what we're being told. The secular
world will continue to push its view of what is right and what is wrong, whether
you agree or not. Nor will challenging "Christian privileges" to this
effect provide greater religious freedom to others. Indeed it will suppress ALL
freedoms for everyone.
@Russell SpencerWell said. It seems that there is a definite
negative attitude floating around about religion these days, and attitudes often
lead to actions. The Bolsheviks started as an attitude and eventually destroyed
millions of people's freedoms. The best thing is to help society see that
religion isn't a "bad" thing, which is becoming a more popular
idea, despite plenty of research to the opposite.
@abtrumpet"Religion isn't a 'bad'
thing..."I think it's a bad thing to teach a child from
very early on that they are inherently "sinful" (whatever "sin"
is). I think this sets up a dynamic seen in all abusive relationships: One
person in the relationship convinces the other that he/she is guilty of
something or somehow can't be trusted and the "unworthy" one spends
the rest of the relationship seeking approval and/or trying to prove that he/she
isn't unworthy.I think it's reprehensible that children
are subjected to this message at a time when they are hardwired to believe what
they are told and thus have no defenses against it.I think the
communities of support that religions construct are a good thing, but when the
above is the price to be paid...These communities can exist without all the
judgmental, divisive, and brow-beating dogma. And they do. More and more, they
@ Karen R,So, you believe that all religions teach what you claim they
teach? Then ridicule them for it? I think you may have just been a party to
the very thing you claim not to be. Being religious means that you try to live
a life conforming to the tenets of your chosen faith, and teaching your children
the same. What you seem to espouse is that there are no morals, no right or
wrong, just whatever is popular so as not to upset anyone. That isn't
religion, that's pop culture. I don't teach my children
that they are inherently "sinful", rather I teach them that they are
children of a loving God who wants them to be happy and to bless them. I teach
that there are standards of right and wrong, that morals count and lead to
happiness; as opposed to unhappiness and regret from not doing those things. I
want to be able to espouse my faith without ridicule and without have the
government tell me what is OK to believe in, or try to impose their secular
beliefs on me. That is religious freedom....
@JackI don't know where you got your first paragraph out of
what I wrote. As to your second paragraph:I am aware that not all
religions teach the doctrine of inherent "sinfulness." I am very happy
to hear that you don't teach this to your children.You said,
"I teach that there are standards of right and wrong, that morals count and
lead to happiness; as opposed to unhappiness and regret from not doing those
things." Me too.Your definition of "religious freedom"
does not match our Constitution's. However, it does accurately describe
the privileged position I alluded to in my first post.
@Archer of Paradise;Your argument fails to take into account the
fact that denying marriage to LGBT couples violates the religious freedom of
churches that believe SSM is okay (not to mention the religious freedom of the
LGBT couples themselves).Allowing an employer to dictate whether or
not their employees get the medical attention they need violates the religious
freedom of the employees by forcing that of the employer on them. Businesses are not people. Businesses do not worship. Businesses do not have
a right to "religious freedom"; that right is reserved for actual,
honest-to-goodness, living human beings.