As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?
Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to spiritual &/or behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. Keeping the government and law free from religious doctrine makes it fair for all.
Is that or is that not true?
2007-06-04 06:30:02 · 11 answers · asked by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, beta fish........ "murder" is NOT a Judeo-Christian "concept", and neither is OPPOSITION to murder. Valuing life, considering it a basic right, ALSO not an original or an exclusively Christian sentiment. No, this is not a Christian nation and we would NOT be lost without the Bible. We'd STILL understand that taking life is wrong.
2007-06-04 06:39:57 · update #1
I believe what Thomas Jefferson wrote, that government is instituted to protect individual freedoms. The government should only enact those laws which are necessary to secure our ability to live and exercise personal freedoms and which don't impose on anyone requirements that are unnecessary to reach that goal. Imposing Muslim dietary restrictions upon Christians and Jews would not secure religious freedom for Christians and Jews, nor would denying Muslims the right to observe those restrictions.
2007-06-04 07:13:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is very true, laws should not be made from one given set of behavior or morals, but should deal with helping society to function. For example gay marriage is only illegal due to religious beliefs - barring any moral issues, there is no real argument against it, except potentially for tax or insurance concerns. Murder, theft etc. all hurt other individuals and are appropaite for a government to regulate.
On the other hand, eliminating our history/heritage from government or other buildings or wording is a bit silly. For example, a very old government building has a plaque or stone carving with a biblical quote, yes I may not believe in the quote, but it's part of the history. Even "one nation under God" in the pledge has it's place in history, I don't believe it but have no problems with it being there.
2007-06-04 06:40:43 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the entire factor is against the form's first modification. Obamacare could require the Catholic Church to do something this is against their faith which might violate their non secular freedom. the government is stupid, however the bill is in the preferrred court docket on the 2nd and this is probabilities of staying are low, the republicans outnumber the democrats in the preferrred court docket now. If this bill is exceeded the Church won't do it, they're going to take the punishment (fines) quite of going against their faith because of the fact of a few stupid regulation.
2016-11-04 22:25:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very true. This is why I don't like the anti-gay marriage amendments, even though I don't quite agree with homosexuality. I don't agree with eating pork either but I don't expect it to be removed from grocery stores. It's nothing short of idiotic to make laws with no basis other than someone's religion, even if that religion is the majority. This is America and we have many different faiths here and it's time we learned to respect them all.
2007-06-04 06:37:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Generally true, although I could see that being a slippery slope. (I.e. "murder" is a Judeo-Christian concept dating all the way back to the ten commandments. Enforcement of it is infringement on the religious freedom of all who do not share that belief. A bit of an extreme example, but you can see where the difficulty might arise in ensuring absolute religious freedom for everyone)
2007-06-04 06:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The irony here is that the first amendment has its foundations in religous ideals (that of Deists, look it up). It is impossible to create a government that doesn't help shape a nation's morality.
2007-06-04 06:34:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I completely agree.
2007-06-04 06:38:21 · answer #7 · answered by milomax 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds basically true.
2007-06-04 06:33:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO one forces me to do anything,,except my wife..
2007-06-04 06:34:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Exactly!
2007-06-04 06:35:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋