Freedom of Religion in a Multicultural Society

[_ajax18]

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?

It wouldn't hurt to ask and document for the record.

We have plenty of radical Christians, and Christianity has had a colored past of taking peoples freedom away.

All Muslims are not terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim. What are you exactly trying to accomplish by obscuring this fact? Why is what happened millennia ago in the crusades even relevant?

and that you much more likely to die from others forms of violence in the West.

You're not targeted as randomly in these forms of violence. Jihadist will kill you just for being American.

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.

Obama is responsible for a lot of ISIL by backing out of Iraq prematurely. After 8 years of failed Obama policies in the Middle East, you're still blaming Bush. You should hope the Republicans get elected in 2016 because you're running out of people to blame.

[_ajax18]

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

Is making a threat of assassination not a crime? Are we allowed to burn crosses and put it on display in a church? Why do we tolerate essentially the same thing in a mosque?

[_The CCC]

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?

It wouldn't hurt to ask and document for the record.

We have plenty of radical Christians, and Christianity has had a colored past of taking peoples freedom away.

All Muslims are not terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim. What are you exactly trying to accomplish by obscuring this fact? Why is what happened millennia ago in the crusades even relevant?

and that you much more likely to die from others forms of violence in the West.

You're not targeted as randomly in these forms of violence. Jihadist will kill you just for being American.

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.

Obama is responsible for a lot of ISIL by backing out of Iraq prematurely. After 8 years of failed Obama policies in the Middle East, you're still blaming Bush. You should hope the Republicans get elected in 2016 because you're running out of people to blame.

So ISIS is bad that they murder, rape, pillage, and destroy. But are so good that they won't fib.

No they are not. Of the 356 mass shooting in this country this year only two have been connect to Muslims.

Do you even realize what Americans have done to Iraqi's for Bush's insane war for O.I.L?

The Status of Forces Agreement that took American soldiers out of Iraq was signed by George with. Bush.

[_ajax18]

So ISIS is bad that they murder, rape, pillage, and destroy. But are so good that they won't fib.

What's wrong with asking? Do you think we don't have a right to ask? I personally don't think we should be bringing people into the country who are sympathetic to radical Islamic jihad. Do you think it's ok if they're sympathetic to it as long as they haven't actually become martyrs yet?

[_Themis]

It wouldn't hurt to ask and document for the record.

Trump depends on your stupidity and ignorance. Do you even know what a person has to go through to immigrate. What questions they ask? I suspect not a clue.

All Muslims are not terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim. What are you exactly trying to accomplish by obscuring this fact?

You haven't shown this is a fact. You have been shown that most terrorists who have done attacks in the US are not Muslim. Will you continue to ignore this. I suspect you will.

Why is what happened millennia ago in the crusades even relevant?

Understanding history is the first step in not making mistakes. Just because something happened long ago does not mean it does not affect people today in how they think and feel.

You're not targeted as randomly in these forms of violence. Jihadist will kill you just for being American.

people can be targeted for just being at PP or being black. First seek to understand Ajax.

Obama is responsible for a lot of ISIL by backing out of Iraq prematurely. After 8 years of failed Obama policies in the Middle East, you're still blaming Bush. You should hope the Republicans get elected in 2016 because you're running out of people to blame.

All you guys do is blame Obama. You think he should have solved these problems as though they are easy to do. Congress has been a major hindrance, and many problems that can be created over night do not have easy solutions or are going to be solved in years. Some can last centuries or more. Terrorism from radical groups like ISIL is not going to be won by making the large majority of the Muslim community who don't support it the enemy, but this is what you want to do. The threat of dying from terrorism is very small but it goes up and down. It is highly affected by invasions of countries that didn't attack the US. So many more people have died because of this then have died from all Islamic terrorist attacks against the US. But you won't address that this is one of the many problems created by poor decisions in US policies. Your intolerance and hate only make things worse. It's exactly how groups like ISIL manipulate you into helping them.

[_The CCC]

So ISIS is bad that they murder, rape, pillage, and destroy. But are so good that they won't fib.

What's wrong with asking? Do you think we don't have a right to ask? I personally don't think we should be bringing people into the country who are sympathetic to radical Islamic jihad. Do you think it's ok if they're sympathetic to it as long as they haven't actually become martyrs yet?

But Christians and Jews are fine with you?
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ

[_Res Ipsa]

Is making a threat of assassination not a crime? Are we allowed to burn crosses and put it on display in a church? Why do we tolerate essentially the same thing in a mosque?

Exactly what is happening in a mosque that is "essentially the same thing" as making an assassination threat or burning crosses and putting them on display in a church (which would be stupid, as the church would presumably burn down)?

[_MeDotOrg]

When religions fight in the name of the almighty, it makes me think of this old Randy Newman song:

...The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"

What I would like to see is a jamboree with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews, where they sign this pledge:

"I have my own personal points of view. While your point of view made be different, faith in my own beliefs, in and of itself, does not constitute empirical proof. We all live in a world where different religions have different beliefs. Many Religious tenants can not be proven or disproved by any objective measurement of reality. Therefore Religions must accept that what they see as eternal truths other Religions may not.

Religions that do not accept this point of view condemn this world to a perpetual war in the name of God, which perpetually keeps us away from God.

May the primary manifestation of our love of God be our service to our fellow man with compassion and humility.

[_honorentheos]

In the lead up to the 2014 mid-term elections one couldn't get away from the fear campaigning. Ebola was a tsunami towering above us just waiting to crash down and wash over the United States. Immigrants from south were swarming over the border interspersed with terrorists and dangerous criminals. Russia the were-bear appeared to be transformed into it's threatening vicious self from the cold war years. North Korea just was. It was amazing Americans dared step outside.

Come November, we found other things to occupy our minds.

One would think fear campaigning proved effective given we're seeing it earlier and with more intensity led by a businessman posing as a Presidential hopeful this cycle.

Reynolds vs. US is sufficient in my mind to address the question of the OP. When thought crime becomes actual crime, we're no longer a nation worthy of our ideals and it probably doesn't matter anymore what we claim to be - multicultural, Christian, or whatever.

ETA - Relevant language from the Cantwell v. Connecticut decision, related to the balance between religious belief and religious action - "The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, by statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/case.html

[_EAllusion]

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?

No, I think this is an incorrect reading of the overall spirit of the first amendment and the political thinking that led to it. You're free to believe whatever you want and there's a radical tolerance of that freedom expressed in the enlightenment liberalism in that first amendment idea . That includes believing things that are destructive to the constitutional order. Actions are a different story, but that's not the issue you brought up.

THink about it this way: A huge % of America's conservative Christians interpret the first amendment as allowing, even requiring, Christian hegemony carried about by the government. Regardless of their beliefs about it, this is an affront to the constitutional order as well. And unlike Muslims, they're in a position to enforce this view upon the government. Yet, the government doing anything to censor or punish this viewpoint would be grossly unconstitutional.