Freedom of Religion in a Multicultural Society

[_The CCC]

I live by the maxim that my religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

[_MeDotOrg]

I live by the maxim that my religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

+1



Another [Robert Dear] post reportedly said: 'God made us so he can kill who he wants... the lord giveth the lord taketh away.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3twUc8e16
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[_Analytics]

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.

That is an excellent point. Religion is inherently a subjective thing and everybody has their own take on their own religion. I'd be content with simply asking them what their beliefs are on these specific issues. We already interview immigrants and prospective citizens. All we need to do is add this requirement to the purview of the interview.

[_Analytics]

I live by the maxim that my religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

Exactly. And if somebody's religion says they get to hit infidels, we shouldn't mince words about whether such a religion is compatible with American values.

[_The CCC]

I live by the maxim that my religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

Exactly. And if somebody's religion says they get to hit infidels, we shouldn't mince words about whether such a religion is compatible with American values.

I don't care if they are infidels or not. In a way anyone not Hindu is an infidel to Hinduism.
In Islam Muslims, Christians, and Jews are not infidels. They are all People of the Book.

[_ajax18]

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.

I don't mean to cause you further self doubt by saying how much I agree with you, but that's some really good thinking. I have a hard time believing the founding Father's had Islam and jihad in mind when drafting the constitution.

I don't think people realize that Donald Trump's positions are a lot more in line with the common Republican voter than Jeb Bush and the establishment. The establishment is blaming it all on the polls now. They continue to disrespect the concerns of their constituency and yet act like they want to be our Presidential nominee.

All this is theoretical anyway. To choose which immigrants come to America by democratic laws, you'd have to enforce the border first which we aren't willing to do.

[_subgenius]

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?

Freedom of religion, is much like other freedoms unfortunately...in that tolerance always has fences and God blesses the fence makers.

I recommend the following by the beloved Robert Frost
http://www.bartleby.com/104/64.html

Freedom of speech does not apply when considering a person's right to scream "Fire" in a crowded theater.

[_The CCC]

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.

I don't mean to cause you further self doubt by saying how much I agree with you, but that's some really good thinking. I have a hard time believing the founding Father's had Islam and jihad in mind when drafting the constitution.

I don't think people realize that Donald Trump's positions are a lot more in line with the common Republican voter than Jeb Bush and the establishment. The establishment is blaming it all on the polls now. They continue to disrespect the concerns of their constituency and yet act like they want to be our Presidential nominee.

All this is theoretical anyway. To choose which immigrants come to America by democratic laws, you'd have to enforce the border first which we aren't willing to do.

Actually the Founding Father did have Islam in mind.
SEE Treaty of Tripoli http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[_Themis]

That is an excellent point. Religion is inherently a subjective thing and everybody has their own take on their own religion. I'd be content with simply asking them what their beliefs are on these specific issues. We already interview immigrants and prospective citizens. All we need to do is add this requirement to the purview of the interview.

Would people not know what they are getting at and give then the answer that will help get them in the country they are trying to immigrate to? Hate laws are a good way to go and most countries have them. They already look at people who want to immigrate to see if they hold ideologies hate and violence. We won't fix any problems by making all Muslims the enemy as ISIL wants. We have plenty of radical Christians, and Christianity has had a colored past of taking peoples freedom away. The best course of action is to help Islam to become more moderate. Muslims in the west are far more moderate in their thinking and beliefs then those in other parts of the world. This is because of our influence. This influence is happening all around the world. We will win just as we have over other areas like slavery in the US. While there is a problem, people are letting fear cloud there understanding, and that you much more likely to die from others forms of violence in the West. It doesn't help when despicable people like Trump use this fear and hate for their own purposes. I think Bush made some very big mistakes that have created groups like ISIL, but he never stopped to this level.

[_Res Ipsa]

I live by the maxim that my religious right to swing my righteous fist ends at your unrighteous nose.

Exactly. And if somebody's religion says they get to hit infidels, we shouldn't mince words about whether such a religion is compatible with American values.

I understand your point, Analytics, but you are coming too close to the notion of "thought crime" for my comfort.