Freedom of Religion in a Multicultural Society

[_Analytics]

I have a tiny little bit of sympathy for The Donald's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States. I find this very disturbing, so I'm going to throw my thoughts out there, hoping that you will disabuse me of the flaws in my thinking.

It seems to me that when we say Americans have freedom of religion, we are really saying two things. First, we are saying that each of us has the right to practice our own religion. Second, we are saying that we must grant that same right to others. Logically, those two things can't be separated, which implies that the guarantee of freedom of religion has inherent limitations. Perhaps an example is the best way to illustrate where I'm going with this. Say somebody's sincere religious belief is that infidels must be enslaved or killed. Does the freedom of religion protect that religious practice? No, it doesn't because it can't. it can't protect that religious practice because that religious practice is incompatible with freedom of religion in the first place.

This leads me to think that the Constitution isn't neutral on religious and moral beliefs. Rather, it heavily favors religious beliefs that are compatible with a multicultural society lead by a secular government. Religious beliefs that fall out of those parameters are not and can not be compatible with society that is governed by the Constitution.

Thoughts?

[_ldsfaqs]

Instead of saying "secular" government you should have said "moral" government....

Any government can be corrupted if the people running it and in the country are no longer moral to a high degree.
The Founders even warned that America was only sustainable by morality.

Otherwise, you are correct. Certain things are not compatible, such as Sharia, Fanatical Islam, etc.
Thus, Trump was right that there should be a "hold" on Muslim immigration until the government can actually figure out to properly screen them so as much as possible only the "good" ones come in, the ones who believe in Freedom, who fought against evil Islam, corruption, etc.

And let's remind the lying liberals out there, that's what Trump actually said..... he was saying "ban" Muslims from entering the country, only to STOP it for a time, UNTIL the government get's some decent standards in place. (and to think liberals think I don't comprehend and are the liar about everything LOL, yet I expose them like this all the time.) But, liberals are okay with immigrants (especially illegal) doing bad things, just as they have been with those from the Southern border. It doesn't matter to them the damage to lives such "anarchy" causes.

[_canpakes]

Thoughts?

One answer seems pretty straightforward. One is free to practice their religion and exercise it's principles on themselves, but one is not allowed to unilaterally exercise the particular or unique tenets of their own religion upon others without the other person's approval.

[_The CCC]

Instead of saying "secular" government you should have said "moral" government....

Any government can be corrupted if the people running it and in the country are no longer moral to a high degree.
The Founders even warned that America was only sustainable by morality.

Otherwise, you are correct. Certain things are not compatible, such as Sharia, Fanatical Islam, etc.
Thus, Trump was right that there should be a "hold" on Muslim immigration until the government can actually figure out to properly screen them so as much as possible only the "good" ones come in, the ones who believe in Freedom, who fought against evil Islam, corruption, etc.

And let's remind the lying liberals out there, that's what Trump actually said..... he was saying "ban" Muslims from entering the country, only to STOP it for a time, UNTIL the government get's some decent standards in place. (and to think liberals think I don't comprehend and are the liar about everything LOL, yet I expose them like this all the time.) But, liberals are okay with immigrants (especially illegal) doing bad things, just as they have been with those from the Southern border. It doesn't matter to them the damage to lives such "anarchy" causes.

One man's morality is another man's immorality. The LDS held that polygamy was moral, the rest of America disagreed. Whose morality prevailed in secular America?

Your are an idiot. Liberals are not Okay with doing illegal activities. Even if liberals would like to change some laws. by the way It isn't as though Conservatives don't want to change some laws too. USSC Justice Anthony Scalia is nobody's Liberal, he wants to change the laws against racial discrimination in education in this country back to the "Separate but Equal" Jim Crow days. I guess your plagiarist morality and his Jim Crow morality is so much much better than that of Liberals.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Analytics!

In my mind - Freedom of religion is something that is given to individual people (at least those people who live in a country where this freedom exists)

Individuals take this freedom and do with it what they want.

The problems, challenges and issues are born when those that "take" their personal freedom of religion become the "giver" of their personal freedom of religion. In other words - an individual person that has "taken" his freedom to practice a particular religion has a desire to "give" their particular religion to all others (obviously this is often "given" by force and without consent, approval and/or involvement by the group who is demanded to "receive")

When this happens - the results vary across the entire spectrum. One on end - we might find people who are arrogant, self righteous, judgmental, divisive and/or problematic to peaceful societies. One the other end - we might find terrorism - domestic and foreign - that have "taken" this freedom of religion to radical levels and because of the radicalization are now are "giving" their personal freedoms to others by killing them.

Dear (The radical Christian terrorist) and the San Bernardino couple (The radical Muslim terrorists) are but two recent examples of the enormous dangers that this world faces when "takers" of their personal freedom of religion become "givers" of their personal freedom of religion.

Just my take.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Analytics]

And let's remind the lying liberals out there, that's what Trump actually said..... he was saying "ban" Muslims from entering the country, only to STOP it for a time, UNTIL the government get's some decent standards in place. (and to think liberals think I don't comprehend and are the liar about everything LOL, yet I expose them like this all the time.) But, liberals are okay with immigrants (especially illegal) doing bad things, just as they have been with those from the Southern border. It doesn't matter to them the damage to lives such "anarchy" causes.

Who are you referring to, specifically, by "lying liberals?" Of course liberals are against Trump on this issue, but the majority of Republicans are too, including, I think, every single other Republican candidate. Are they all lying liberals too?

[_Analytics]

Thoughts?

One answer seems pretty straightforward. One is free to practice their religion and exercise it's principles on themselves, but one is not allowed to unilaterally exercise the particular or unique tenets of their own religion upon others without the other person's approval.

That is an excellent way to restate my point; thank you. What I really want to emphasize is that this is in fact a limit on religious freedom, and there are some religions with precepts that go beyond this limitation and insist that religion isn't a personal matter--it is something that society does as a whole. According to these religions, the religion can't work unless everybody is on board with it, so the religion needs to strive to coerce universal compliance and government enforcement.

That being the case, is it consistent with American values to tell potential immigrants, "your religious beliefs aren't compatible with religious freedom in America, and on this basis we are going to deny your visa application." It's really uncomfortable to say that, but I can't help but see some validity to it.

[_Analytics]

Hey Analytics!

In my mind - Freedom of religion is something that is given to individual people (at least those people who live in a country where this freedom exists)

Individuals take this freedom and do with it what they want.

The problems, challenges and issues are born when those that "take" their personal freedom of religion become the "giver" of their personal freedom of religion. In other words - an individual person that has "taken" his freedom to practice a particular religion has a desire to "give" their particular religion to all others (obviously this is often "given" by force and without consent, approval and/or involvement by the group who is demanded to "receive")

When this happens - the results vary across the entire spectrum. One on end - we might find people who are arrogant, self righteous, judgmental, divisive and/or problematic to peaceful societies. One the other end - we might find terrorism - domestic and foreign - that have "taken" this freedom of religion to radical levels and because of the radicalization are now are "giving" their personal freedoms to others by killing them.

Dear (The radical Christian terrorist) and the San Bernardino couple (The radical Muslim terrorists) are but two recent examples of the enormous dangers that this world faces when "takers" of their personal freedom of religion become "givers" of their personal freedom of religion.

Just my take.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Just your take? You dang taker!

Personally, I find proselytizing to be a well-meaning, but somewhat offensive practice. I'm good with it though, as long as the proselytizer says, "You reject my message? Well, you are going to hell after you die, but that's okay. Until then, we can be good neighbors and friends." It's a gray line between somebody legislating their religiously-motivated morality and enforcing their religious beliefs on others.

[_Themis]

That being the case, is it consistent with American values to tell potential immigrants, "your religious beliefs aren't compatible with religious freedom in America, and on this basis we are going to deny your visa application." It's really uncomfortable to say that, but I can't help but see some validity to it.

The problem you will get into is telling them what their religious values and beliefs are.

[_Tobin]

It's actually pretty simple. Foreign nationals DO NOT have constitutional rights. We can discriminate against who is allowed in this country based on any number of factors including race, religion, and country of origin for example.