Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
Call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
2007-03-29 16:49:18 · 11 answers · asked by Constitution Party for President 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I support all religious practices. I do not support anyone telling me where and when it can be practiced. I do not support the government telling my child they can not pray in school; without worrying of offending or being subject to discipline or lawsuit.
2007-03-29 17:07:02 · update #1
It is all about equality.
The Liberal mindset can be summed up in I believe it was John Lennon's song:
Imagine a world with no government
No religion
No countries
Just the brotherhood of man.
In their quest for equality, they are trying to eliminate any difference in opinion.
2007-03-29 17:37:35 · answer #1 · answered by wolfseeker 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are correct, partially.
The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Any PRIVATE place that is.
But the Constitution also prohibits the government from passing any laws "respecting the establishment of religion". That means, they cannot endorse, promote or sponsor any religion. And certainly not one religion over any other.
So, you can do whatever you want in private. And the government is not allowed to intrude. That's free exercise.
But you can't use government funds to pay for your religious activities. You can't make your religion the de facto standard in schools or public buildings. That's non-establishment.
Do you really not understand the difference between allowing you to believe what you want, and prohibiting you from forcing your religion down everyone else's throats?
I assume you support school prayer. Would you feel the same way if the prayers were all conducted according to Islamic practices? Or if the prayers were made to the Goddess and God duality of the Wiccan faith? Or if the monument in front of your town hall was a Jewish Star of David, or a statue of Buddha?
Or are you only in favor of govt-sponsored religious expression when your religion is the one being promoted?
2007-03-29 16:52:29 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
i guess if you want every religions laws, books, symbols, etc. posted every where than good idea. However, most Liberals just don't want one religion overpowering every other religion in public spaces. It gets too close to setting up a state religion. I think your child can pray in school it just can't be a group prayer in the classroom. We have religious student groups at my high school and we have muslims that pray during lunch in a seprate area and nothing is wrong with that.
To the person who said "survival of the fittest." that was never meant for humans.
2007-03-29 17:31:04 · answer #3 · answered by Sam K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are wrong about one thing. The government has never told your child they could not pray in school. What the law rightly states is that the school can not organize, promote, or endorse any such prayers. If your child wishes to bow their head and pray to themselves or even say prayers aloud in the hallway between classes they can.
2007-03-29 19:14:08 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
uh... kids can pray in school? a school would not stand a chance that tried to deny that... if that has happened, you should push that... they will either cave into you, or be trashed by the judget that gets the case...
does anyone that cries about liberals ever actually look into the issues they cry about?
this is exactly like "freedom of speech"... we have it, but that doesn't mean a kid can stand up in the middle of class and start yelling out what ever comes to his mind when ever he wants... there are reasonable limits to both ideas...
what exactly are you fighting for, specifically... and what have you or others been denied?
2007-03-29 17:13:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it is in the Bible. Christians need to learn this. The world will become more anti-God.
I just wait for evolutionist to push Abortions. Then God may show them, abortion and abort them. Funny, I bet they scream about having a choice for life!
Dang, I sorry as many that believe in evolution not beieve abortions are right. Dang, really sorry there. Evolution teach survial of the fittest. So, we abort the lesser of the species. Heck, look at the money it save the tax payer!!!
2007-03-29 17:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by Snaglefritz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. So how is your religious freedom being violated then? You can exercise your religion all you want as long as you don't infringe upon other citizens' rights. Are you infringing upon other peoples' rights? I guess I'm confused about where your question is.
2007-03-29 16:56:45 · answer #7 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Get real, the religious zealots are trying to pigeon hole everyone into their self righteous boxes. The need to be morally superior is pathetic. No one is taking religious rights. You all need a platform..Learn to live and let others breathe without listening to your martyr drivel.
2007-03-29 17:01:54 · answer #8 · answered by Debra J 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
hiya till the two social gathering monopoly is broken you could save on awaiting to lose your rights. seem on the detest rules that are being exceeded transforming into new instructions of people with particular protections. It replaced into no longer good transforming into form of people with fewer rights (Slavery and females with out the remarkable to vote) and it is not good to grant individual particular rights. With the present regulation while you're killed for money your killer gets much less time in detention center than in case you get killed for being gay. apparently that's okay to hate somebody via fact they have money. you could in all likelihood call me between the religious good via fact jointly as i've got faith that gay couples do have the remarkable to civil unions they might desire to no longer be reported as marriage. i think of the union between a guy and a woman is diverse than a woman and a woman, or a guy and a guy. 3 forms of unions 3 names please. Abortion i think of that's faulty yet i think of the loss of life penalty is faulty as properly. i'm no longer able to make certain how people who're against the loss of life penalty might properly be for abortion. yet extra suitable than any element i've got faith the government is attending to important and the two the republicans and democrats choose for it that way. the government should not be changing CEO's they might desire to enable the businesses that are failing fail. Sorry for the ramble i'm no longer happy with the two social gathering. Or the endured erosion of my constitutional rights.
2016-11-24 22:58:25 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought the amendment was freedom from religion...
2007-03-29 17:06:40 · answer #10 · answered by jimbo z 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋