Re: PropTechniques' Freedom of Religion Video

[nathanaelstacy1]

@Catch22here Here ya go Catch. /watch?v=YGx549Fh2to

I got tired of his stuff too -- actually had him blocked for some time. But stumbled upon this video, and thought it deserved a correction.

[PrintedTruth]

No one really wants to see the government impose upon it's citizens to the point of controlling thier rights to worship. But there is a difference between the founding fathers intention of protecting religious freedom and protecting the citizens against those that would use this freedom to abuse others. There has got to be a line drawn and it has to be a bold clear sharp line, between Freedom of religion/ and Abuse of religion.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@PrintedTruth If you look at history, Printed, Christianity of the colonial period and that of the early USA, you'll find that religions were often much, much stricter on members than are even JW's today. And at the time, some local and state governments required church attendance, adherence to the Sunday Sabbath, etc (and, until Incorporation, this was not barred by the First Amendment). So it's difficult to imagine that the Founders would draw a line at Witnesses.

[PrintedTruth]

@nathanaelstacy1 I have studied History and I do understand that there have always been strict religions. How does that support your argument that there should not be a line drawn between Freedom of Religion and Abuse of Religion? Are you saying it's okay for religions to be abusive because they always have?

[nathanaelstacy1]

@PrintedTruth My statement was in response to this: "But there is a difference between the founding fathers intention of protecting religious freedom and protecting the citizens against those that would use this freedom to abuse others." My point was that treatment you or I might call abuse existed, and was indeed outdone by practices of the Founding Fathers' own era, yet they made no exception in the Constitution for controlling those practices.

[FreeAtLast1914]

I think the biggest oversight in your argument is when you say "that government can't interfere with religion". This is simply not true as you have proven through points you brought out in other comments.

What you don't seem to be grasping is that the government can't discriminate, by placing obligations on one religion and not on another. But it can "interfere" with religions that infract individuals civil rights via punishments, ie defamation.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@FreeAtLast1914 Ok, last time. The establishment clause was intended to prevent the government from legislating minority religions out of existence. It does not permit the government to make laws with the intent of altering or eliminating one religion or another. Period. It would proscribe the type of law Prop was calling for in his video, the intent of which would be the regulation not of society in general, but of religion specifically. My argument wasn't flawed. But thanks. Good day.

[FreeAtLast1914]

@nathanaelstacy1 Ok, my last time, too. The overall point of your argument was sound, but you simply made some statements that have no basis in truth. Just pointing that out, as you felt you needed to for Prop.

I'm not intending this to be a personal attack on you. So don't be so defensive, especially when you're "enlightening" others. Be ready to give a little credit to others if you want to be taken seriously.

[propagandatechniques]

I understand completely what the U.S. Constitution states very well. I am suggesting rewriting the Constitution, which, the last time I checked, is still my right to suggest under the protected speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

And yes, I still believe any agency, whether under the guise of being religious or not should be denied tax exemption when their bylaws contradict the government I pay taxes to.

And do you know what the beauty of this is? It shall come to pass.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@propagandatechniques Haha, well to me a statement like "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and some religions don't allow their members freedom of religion, therefore they should be abolished," is quite a lot different than "The Constitution permits organized religion to control its members, therefore it should be rewritten." But, eh, yeah, whatever you say.

[propagandatechniques]

@nathanaelstacy1 What did you think I meant; the constitution should be abolished? I didn't mean that at all. Why should your taxes support a makeshift government (e.g. - WTS - they use our roads, mail service, etc) that denies people the same liberties our taxes SHOULD be being used to promote?

[nathanaelstacy1]

@propagandatechniques When I said "they should be abolished" i was speaking of religions, not the government. Your video made it clear that you believed the constitutional right to freedom of religion proscribed organized religion from restricting members' behavior and beliefs, which it does not. Your comment to me stated that the Constitution should be rewritten, so as to prevent organized religion from controlling its members.

[FreeAtLast1914]

"Guinn vs. Church of Christ of Collinsville" is another example of churches going too far in their enthusiasm to punish their member who have gone astray.

In my experience as a former member of JWs, their going too far in disciplining members is par for the course. They will lie, slander, and steal from those who question their authority. But they have good lawyers.

Of course, most billion dollar company's usually do.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@FreeAtLast1914 An example of the affect of law on religion is the fact that JW disfellowshipping announcements no longer state the 'offense' of the disfellowshipped Witness. This is because the person has not been found 'guilty' in court, and therefore such a statement may be defamation under the law. But the congregation is still permitted to expel the member.

[FreeAtLast1914]

You make the argument that religions are free to punish their member for infractions of their own rules. This, too, is a flawed argument, since the religion has limits on the punishment they mete out. If they go too far, I think you would agree they are then in the position of infringing a person's constitutional civil rights.

I'm sure this was an oversight for you.

Check out "Bear vs. Reformed Mennonite Church" for an example of this.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@FreeAtLast1914 Religion does have limits, based, not on the Constitution, but on criminal and civil law. In Bear, for instance, the court (Pennsylvania, not the US Supreme Court) held that the potentially legitimate state interest in family and economic stability allowed for some leniency in interpreting the First Amendment protection, which would ordinarily PREVENT the courts from finding in the plaintiff's favor. (cont'd)

[nathanaelstacy1]

@FreeAtLast1914 (cont) The Court (US Supreme) has found reasonable EXCEPTIONS to First Amendment protection, in regard to laws that apply equally to the religious and non-religious, as long as the affect on religion is incidental. For instance, theft is illegal, and therefore one cannot escape punishment for a theft by saying their religion requires it. But the state cannot make laws that serve no purpose other than regulating (preventing the free exercise) of religion.

[FreeAtLast1914]

@nathanaelstacy1 You prove my point by the exceptions you mention. These are by no means the only limits on religious punishments, as regional defamation of a person's character and reputation is also a no-go. So religions ARE limited in the punishment they mete out, be it by constitutional, criminal, or civil rights.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@FreeAtLast1914 I never stated that there are no limits on the types of punishments a religion could mete out -- common sense would state that, for instance, I was not implying that religions were permitted to kill parishioners, etc. My point was that the Constitution prevents, not enables, the government to make laws of the type Prop suggested. All of the restrictions are the result of exceptions to freedom of religion, not as a result of the constitutional right itself.