The Glade 4.0

There's that, too. Or the endless strwam of Mexicans wanting to mow my lawn that don't speak English and frighten my wife if I'm not at home.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That may be what you think you were doing, but that's not what you were doing.

First, you started off with an unfounded assertion, thus nullifying the rest of your question.
Of course, the US Constitution has this to say about religion.
Arguably, the establishment portion is identical, and thus redundant, with the assembly portion; the free exercise portion is identical, and thus redundant, with the speech portion. This does not qualify as granting any greater protections or accommodations.

The legal system, now, over the years, has granted certain accommodations to religious beliefs and practices BUT not in isolation. Certain non-religious beliefs and practices have, in that same system, also been granted certain accommodations. Some equal, some greater, some lesser. I think you will find that arguing that one has been in sum greater than the other a fool's errand. But feel free. I already have the sneaking suspicion that you, too, are a fool.

Religion is not special as a motive force. There are many others, and ultimately, the outcomes are fairly equally odious.

_________________

I think that's splitting hairs, DE, but if you prefer to say that our legal system grants greater a broader scope of protections to religious beliefs and practices than to non-religious beliefs and practices, that's fine with me.


But it doesn't protect against tests for the presence or absence of beliefs that aren't religious in nature. For example, pacifism or environmentalism grounded in secular morality would be outside the protection of that clause.

Well, shuyung, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I have never in 43 years witnessed that. I have however, seen people of faith do exactly that.

Maybe it's simply where I've lived, but I've literally never experienced that, from either family members, co-workers, or social acquaintances.

The opposite, however, is readily prevalent.

I suppose I've always chalked it up to living in the Bible Belt. But it's incredibly uncomfortable to anyone who doesn't share views in lockstep with the loudmouth, who insists on positive feedback from his/her audience. And at that point, you have two choices: either state your own beliefs (which the loudmouth takes as a personal slight or invitation to an argument) or agree with something you don't believe in order to simply try to move the conversation (proselytization) along. I'm not a fan of putting anyone in that position, no matter one's beliefs.

Really? Jesus, it seems like every December I get hordes of them standing outside my door holding candles and singing religious songs.

No thats not it. A thing is either protected.or not protected. By expand the scope, I am pointing out that the scope of all protected things is expanded. Religious things so not have a hreater scope of protection, an what air-splitting you think is goong on is a mystery.

Such concepts did not exist at the time of writing. In any case the equal rotection clause fulfills the same function and renders revision unnecessary.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

by eldey relative I mean he general tendency of the elderly to rely on familoal respect and desire for peace to speak their minds uncontested.

At work, however, I've run across it in every workplace I was ever in at least a couple times a year.
loudmouths are lretty much loudmouths regardless of where they live or what they believe.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Most likely you just arent paying attention, or do it yourself- probably wiyhout even realizing it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My spacing could probably have been a bit clearer. I chalk up the fact that I've never had an atheist/secularist proselytize to/at me, but have had countless evangelical Christians do so, to the fact that I live in the South. I assume areas where the demographics aren't quite so homogenous would offer varying results. Being part of the majority generally means a combination of blindly expecting everyone else to be like you, and feeling the sufficient amount of societal protection to be obnoxious about it.

Eh, maybe the unbelievers don't start out with trying to take down believers, but let one know that you a Christian or some other flavor? Then the sparks fly. I've seen it way too many times. On the job, private settings...believe me, there are plenty of atheist out there ready to tell you you are wrong.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I think the whole of this argument probably boils down to untrustworthy perception and being blind to and/or unbothered by when "your side" does it.

This.

What if you dont have a 'side' ?

Unlikely, at least in my case. I find evangelical prostelyitizing quite annoying, since I dont go to the "right" church. Its just that I dont see them do it in the workplace like athesists do, or at gatherings, or otherwise at places where "this isnt the time or the place" allows a quick drive-by rant with response impeded by politeness.

When evangelicals talk to me its in an appropriate place, such as a public park. Its a place of free public interaction and exchange. While I dismiss tbem as fast as possible based on the lack of merit of their theology; their choice of venue or the mere fact that they want to talk to me at all. Athesists crow about not doing things like door to door or park interactions, but thats actually the right way to do it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have never been evangalized by aethists or religious folk, but goddammit will someone tell the anti-GMOs, anti-vaccination, vegans, weird-cleanse-of-the-weekers, weird-supplement people and organic crowd to STFU already?????

_________________

Add the super devout dog rescue people to that list, too...

Especially the Pit Bull advocates

_________________

I think the religious don't really tend to see just how in-your-face they really are to people who are not religious.
(to be fair, the reverse is probably true as well)

But many religious feel the need to plaster their office, cubicle, door, desk, greeting cards, family photos, facebook timelines, tumblr walls, and even their response to basic questions such as 'how are you?' with attestations of their faith.

The non-religious are not nearly so vociferous about spreading their beliefs.


Seriously, those of you with social media accounts, I challenge you to go and count the "repost if you're blessed" or "repost if you love jesus" type memes, and compare them with the number of posts espousing beliefs to the contrary. Even discounting the tendency to create echo chambers, my social media accounts are FILLED with people posting this sort of in-your-face stuff. (And I've dumped some of the more vocal posters) And that's just the memes, lets not forget the people going on about how the holy spirit was with them at such-and-such christian rock concert, or the million man march, etc.

I DON'T see that from the Jewish, Muslim, Athiest communities, I do occasionally see it from the pagans I'm friends with, (though at least one of them is a professional blogger/writer so that's at least understandable).


There are some issues and communities that are just more vocal than others. (The anti-vaccination groups are (though I've seen a huge spike in the pro-vaccination groups) , the LGBT tends to be, both sides of the 'marriage equality' debate are), the pro-life groups are)

But please don't claim that the secularists are more or as vocal than the Christians... its not even close.

I think you are on a different tangent.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Well, there's a point here but I was trying to type between other conversations-- The atheists and secularists (I'll lump myself in that bunch for now, though I'm an avid churchgoer, and a 'believer') tend to feel threatened and like they're a minority. When the subject is brought up, we feel pressed to go on the defense (or offense, since at least for some of us, that IS the best defense)

True, but I think displaying evidence of one's beliefs or engaging in behavior that simply reflects those beliefs is categorically different than advocating that another person adopt them or criticizing that person for having different beliefs. Complaining about Christians who simply wear their faith on their sleeves is a bit like complaining about gay people who are all "in your face" by having the audacity to be visibly gay in public. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of overt affectation generally, and I can't deny that I get a bit judgy when someone is particularly over the top about it, but as long as no one's actively haranguing me, I figure to each their own really is the best rule.

If the government mandates or restricts behavior that is not expressive, communicative or associational in nature, then the Speech, Press and Assembly clauses of the First Amendment won't apply. In that case, the First Amendment would only provide protection if the behavior in question impacts a person's religious beliefs or practices; non-religious beliefs and practices would not qualify for that protection. For example, if the government mandated that employers provide health insurance that covers abortion, an employer who objects because facilitating abortion violates their religious beliefs has an argument for exemption, whereas an employer who objects because facilitating abortion violates their secular moral beliefs (e.g., Elmo's libertarian objections to violating a human fetus' right to life) would not. Hence, there's a broader scope of protection for religious beliefs than for non-religious beliefs.

This would be a more compelling example if the Catholic church weren't losing these very cases left and right.

The establishment clause actually restricts religious freedoms by preventing advocates and believers from using the law as a throne from which to impose those beliefs and practices upon others. Policies driven by other beliefs don't have that hurdle. Socialism, and pro-choice are all doing very well using our courts and legislature as bully pulpits in senses that would be decried if they were policies deemed religiously motivated. In fact, that's probably a huge contribution to the heavy bias pro-choice enjoys under the law despite a much closer split in personal convictions of the populace. Whenever a pro-choicer in government moves to expand protections or legality of abortions, they're lauded as defending womens' interests. When a pro-lifer moves to restrict abortions, their opponents can cry foul because trying to put their faith on the lawbooks under the pretense of defending the fetus' interests.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades