DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Atheist Group Tries to Stop Prayers at High School Football Games That Include ‘Jesus

**nermise** · 10-27-2011, 07:31 PM

Harm doesn't really enter the equation. For example, if a cop comes into my house without a warrant and conducts a search but finds nothing, am I harmed? Apart from the inconvenience and a little anger at being subject to a warrantless search, no (at least not physically). Does that mean my rights against warrantless searches was violated? You betcha! Same goes for being forced to listen to prayer at a public event: Apart from being inconvenienced and a little annoyed, I am not harmed. Nonetheless, I have the right to NOT have a state actor force me to stand silent and listed to prayers. (Note: I am leaving aside the issue of possible "psychic harm," but I think there is good point to be made about that.)

As for respect: What about respect for those who don't believe in gods and religions? Respect is a two-way street. If respect means tolerance for religious viewpoints, it must also mean tolerance for those who do not hold those beliefs. And that means not subjecting non-believers to religion in a public forum. And it means I shouldn't go into a church and force people to listen to my arguments against irrationality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the separation between church and state is something the early Supreme Court made up out of whole cloth, and that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to support that separation: Does it then follow that establishing a state religion is a good thing? You can see where such a government can cause all sorts of problems (e.g., Iran). Why would we want to muck-up the country with an enforced state religion. In other words, whether the church/state separation is "in the Constitution" or not does not mean it would be a good thing to have a state-sanctioned religion.

The Constitution gives you two independent rights in a single amendment where religion is concerned. You have the right to free practice as an individual, and the government can do nothing to impose on you when engaging in that right. Second, the establishment clause, where people derive the "separation of church and state", frequently all too loosely. This means government cannot force any established religion or religious practices on individual private citizens. It cannot, likewise by the first part, stop other individuals from practicing theirs in your presence simply because you might be offended. The key is the constitution binds government, not individuals. To bind individuals in any way, shape, or form, including the free practice of their individual religious beliefs is the DEFINITION of being unconstitutional.

10-27-2011, 07:31 PM	#8
nermise Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	Harm doesn't really enter the equation. For example, if a cop comes into my house without a warrant and conducts a search but finds nothing, am I harmed? Apart from the inconvenience and a little anger at being subject to a warrantless search, no (at least not physically). Does that mean my rights against warrantless searches was violated? You betcha! Same goes for being forced to listen to prayer at a public event: Apart from being inconvenienced and a little annoyed, I am not harmed. Nonetheless, I have the right to NOT have a state actor force me to stand silent and listed to prayers. (Note: I am leaving aside the issue of possible "psychic harm," but I think there is good point to be made about that.) As for respect: What about respect for those who don't believe in gods and religions? Respect is a two-way street. If respect means tolerance for religious viewpoints, it must also mean tolerance for those who do not hold those beliefs. And that means not subjecting non-believers to religion in a public forum. And it means I shouldn't go into a church and force people to listen to my arguments against irrationality. Assuming for the sake of argument that the separation between church and state is something the early Supreme Court made up out of whole cloth, and that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to support that separation: Does it then follow that establishing a state religion is a good thing? You can see where such a government can cause all sorts of problems (e.g., Iran). Why would we want to muck-up the country with an enforced state religion. In other words, whether the church/state separation is "in the Constitution" or not does not mean it would be a good thing to have a state-sanctioned religion. The Constitution gives you two independent rights in a single amendment where religion is concerned. You have the right to free practice as an individual, and the government can do nothing to impose on you when engaging in that right. Second, the establishment clause, where people derive the "separation of church and state", frequently all too loosely. This means government cannot force any established religion or religious practices on individual private citizens. It cannot, likewise by the first part, stop other individuals from practicing theirs in your presence simply because you might be offended. The key is the constitution binds government, not individuals. To bind individuals in any way, shape, or form, including the free practice of their individual religious beliefs is the DEFINITION of being unconstitutional.
	Quote