Journal keraneuology's Journal: Freedom OF religion, freedom FROM religion 12
First, however, my belief is that God exists in some form. There are other beliefs kicking around, all of which are subject to change without notice. I hold involate my right to form, hold, reject and/or discard any belief as I see fit without notice. My existance - whatever that happens to be or mean - and my relationship with god. No debate.
HOWEVER, I also hold inviolate your right to believe or not believe anything you feel like. YOUR relationship with god, the universe or the redhead down the street is yours, none of my business, and quite frankly outside of my circle of concern.
I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Or not. Not my problem or concern.
So where, exactly, is my beef? I object to a fundamental misapplication of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States, specifically the part which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Even though the same restrictions are clearly applied to to speech and the press the courts and various others have consistently held the free exercise of religion to a a different standard than the others.
Most recently a judge declared the recitiation of the Pledge in schools to be unconstitutional. In protecting one group of people FROM religion an unreasonable and burdensome restriction is slapped on the freedom of speech of others. If Johnny wants to stand up in front of class and demonstrate his memory skills by reciting the pledge then he should be allowed to. FORCING children to recite the pledge is wrong. Punishing them for failing to do so is wrong. Preventing all children from reciting the pledge is equally wrong.
There are many classical works of music which reference god in some fashion. It is an unjustifiable restriction against free speech to ban these songs from school choirs. I am not Jewish, but in my mastersingers ensemble back in high school we sang jewish songs at the winter festival. We also sang Handel's Messiah, and some old southern spirituals. We also sang a ditty about kiwi fruit, some song about coffee, a Beach Boys medley, a showtune or two and a song in Latin with the only lyrics being "vanitas vanitas, tum et omni vanitas". I did not feel uncomfortable singing any of them, even if the cultures those songs represent are foreign to me. Parents who teach their children to resent even -hearing- songs representing other cultures are as intolerant as anybody I ever encounter.
In art class students wish to create a work reflecting something that is important to them. There is nothing wrong with allowing a 15 year old to paint an angel and hang it in the hall - no reasonable person could ever find any sort of endorsement in this, yet one's freedom of speech is clearly limited to protect somebody else's freedom from religion.
And so I state it again: if you have a constitutional right to be protected FROM religion then you are claiming that you must be protected FROM the free speech of another person. If you believe that you have a right to be protected FROM the free speech of another then I have a right to be protected FROM your free speech.
Rubbish. Think again. (Score:1)
No, that's not what freedom from religion means at all. It means that I can not be forced in any way to acknowledge the existence of any anyone's invisible friend, either in prticular or
Re:Rubbish. Think again. (Score:2)
This was not even claimed by Newdow when his first lawsuit was booted by the Supreme Court. His protest was not that his daughter had to recite the pledge - in fact, in an interview on CNN [cnn.com] he made it quite clear that his daughter "did not come and say she was ostracized". His complaint was that his daughter was exposed to the pledge. His complaint: "I am an
Re:Rubbish. Think again. (Score:2)
It was snuck in under the RED SCARE to prove America was "better" than the "godless commies."
Its inclusion is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, but no one wanted to counter it for fear of being labelled a DIRTY GODLESS RED COMMIE by McCarthy and his friends.
It should be stripped from the pledge, which would render this entire argument moot.
Re:Rubbish. Think again. (Score:2)
2) The words "under god" within the pledge have nothing to do with schools banning christmas-themed songs at festivals or students' angel artwork from being displayed in the hallway.
3) You will have to make your case - how is the inclusion of the words "under god" a violation of the first ame
Moo (Score:2)
A note about this all. There is such thing as tacit recognition, and the "angel in the hall" or allowing the pledge in current form seems to many to be just that. Tacit recognition makes people feel uncomfortable, and that is why they jump on the first amendment trying to make it mean something else.
When i worked at one place, come Decemeber i was asked if i minded the holiday decorations through out the office. I said "no" simply because they were'nt doing it to offend me, and it wasn
Captive Audience (Score:2)
expression you're engaging in. I'm not in the least bit offended by your posting
your beliefs to a forum, or talking about them in a church situation, certainly
not in privacy with your family.
In a school situation, however, children are required by law to be there. Even
if they weren't, they are for all practical purposes required by the structure
of our society to be there if they want to have a chance to succeed. Therefore,
it
Re:Captive Audience (Score:2)
"...in the same classroom scenario, the teacher was
attempting to convince children..."
I am very conservative in my belief system. It concerns me greatly when teachers discuss liberal ideology, such as promotion of abortion, etc. But where do we draw the line about what is taught in school; politics, religion? But what isn't political, and how often are politics and religion separated?
For example, I have no problem with evolution, it seems natural an
I should know better than to get involved in this (Score:2)
When you have children, you have a duty to raise and educate them as well as you can. You are the main influence in their lives. Then, the time comes when they should go to school, and you understand that, after you, their teaches (and other students) will become an important influence on them.
Now, the school and teachers do have a certain amount of authority over the children. And religion being such a touchy subject, it is important to make sure that they do not misuse their author
Re:I should know better than to get involved in th (Score:2)
If you distance teaching something about religion, it is very difficult to teach social studies and history. History has long been a problem anyway because of the one-sided view of history, that of the victors (revisionists can be v
the right not to listen (Score:2)
Indeed, you *do* have the right to be protected from my free speech!
The point is, that I should not be allowed to force you listen to what I have to say.
This does not mean I don't have the right to say it, it m
Re:the right not to listen (Score:1)
"The point is, that I should not be allowed to force you listen to what I have to say."
Listening is one's own prerogative. Nor is that at stake here- Newdow's case wasn't that his daughter wasn't being "forced to listen" to the pledge, but rather that she is being exposed to something he finds personally offensive.
And no, my right to be protected from your free speech has limits. At home, I certainly have the right to not have telemarketers call me on my own phone unsolicited or be inundated by adwar
Re:the right not to listen (Score:1)