@moonbus saidFreedom of religion is not freedom from being exposed to it in any measure; you’d have to eliminate all forms of that for that, making the official religion Atheism, the goal of some, I’m sure? As atheists deny they have faith and force everyone into their worldview.
@Suzianne
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, especially in the goobermint.The goobermint has no call telling anyone what to believe, when or how to pray, or even whether to believe or pray.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidAs usual, you have missed the point. Freedom of religion is not absolute; America is not ruled by the Taliban. It is not an ace of spades which trumps every other card in the deck and wins every trick. It is one value among many which is to be weighed and balanced in the interest of the general weal.
Freedom of religion is not freedom from being exposed to it in any measure; you’d have to eliminate all forms of that for that, making the official religion Atheism, the goal of some, I’m sure? As atheists deny they have faith and force everyone into their worldview.
Now, to the point in question, a right to freedom of religion means that you may believe anything and call it "religion," but behavior is still regulated by secular law.
Furthermore, no person, acting in an official capacity as a representative of the government, has any call to lead people in prayer or to advocate for or against any religion. Privately, Pete Hegseth may believe anything he wants, but as soon as the Sect'y of Defense is acting in his official capacity, leading people in prayer is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
@moonbus saidYou are under the impression that the only point to be made is yours! I’m not pushing for any specific religious belief, even my own, to be “THEE” religion. I’m specifically saying that being exposed to any of them and complaining about it goes against the free exercise of religion. No one is promised to be shielded from anyone else’s belief; that is NOT freedom of religion, that would be freedom from religious expression, full stop.
As usual, you have missed the point. Freedom of religion is not absolute; America is not ruled by the Taliban. It is not an ace of spades which trumps every other card in the deck and wins every trick. It is one value among many which is to be weighed and balanced in the interest of the general weal.
Now, to the point in question, a right to freedom of religion means that ...[text shortened]... ng people in prayer is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
@KellyJay saidAs usual, you are missing the point. It’s not about being “exposed to” religion. It’s about who is doing the “exposition.” Government has no call to “expose” people to religion. No official of the government acting in an official capacity has any call to “expose” people to religion. That’s what America’s founders wrote, and they meant it.
You are under the impression that the only point to be made is yours! I’m not pushing for any specific religious belief, even my own, to be “THEE” religion. I’m specifically saying that being exposed to any of them and complaining about it goes against the free exercise of religion. No one is promised to be shielded from anyone else’s belief; that is NOT freedom of religion, that would be freedom from religious expression, full stop.
@moonbus saidThere is more than one point being made here; granted, you think yours is the only one worthy, but your points contradict themselves.
As usual, you are missing the point. It’s not about being “exposed to” religion. It’s about who is doing the “exposition.” Government has no call to “expose” people to religion. No official of the government acting in an official capacity has any call to “expose” people to religion. That’s what America’s founders wrote, and they meant it.