religion and politics

[low_delta]

The Constitution was designed so that people could practice their religion in whatever ways they chose. There are many people who feel that their freedom to practice their religion is being impeded by it because their religions dictate that they impose their beliefs on others.

Comments

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

And if more people would view the situation that way, it might not be that hard to figure out a compromise. Might even lead to a generally healthier society anyway.

Not that I can explain that...

[roadskoller.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I've been saying.
I saw a bumper sticker once, that said:
"Jesus, save me from your believers"

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

because their religions dictate that they impose their beliefs on others.

I don't know. I think that's what they want, not what their religions actually dictate.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

The Evangelicals feel that it is required. But even with the others, does it realy matter? They feel that other people, who are simply living their lives as they wish, are interfering with their own ability to live their lives like they wish. It seems all turned around to me.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

That's true, but I think there's clearly a line drawn... e.g. "your right to swing your arm stops at my face." Or "your right to have things doesn't mean you can steal mine."

Claiming that me practicing MY religion is an infringement on their religious rights is like them saying that my ownership of X object is an impediment to their right to steal.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but it sounds like we both think they're out of line, but disagree on exactly why.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I mean that we make clear distinctions in the law between rights that we have over our persons and our possessions, and our "right" to use our persons and possessions to interfere with the persons and possessions of others.

I have the right to have and use property. But not if it's YOUR property. I have the right to have sex. But not if the other person is unwilling. I have the right to walk around. But not to walk around in someone else's home without permission. Our rights are curtailed by the rights of others.

Similarly, I have the right to practice a religion. However, I DO NOT have the right to practice that religion in ways that violate the rights of OTHERS.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Let's look at sodomy. It's something that people do if they want to. Yet in some places it's a crime. And the only reason it's illegal (I would guess) is that the Bible says it's wrong. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

So maybe I should amend my statement to say, "There are many people who feel that their freedom to practice their religion is being impeded..." Because it's harder to limit the ability to practice one's religion. That's more social pressure that can be brought about by governmental example.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I thought your original comment was more directed towards, say, proselytizing in public schools. Because "spreading the word" is indeed a requirement of certain religions. (of course, they don't need to do it in public schools)

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I did mention Evangelism up there, which is more like spreading the word.