Forget it, Frank. (Pope Francis?)
Freedom of Religion really isn’t a basic “human right”.
Matter of fact, I have no idea what a “human right” really is, other than an Allied propaganda stunt at the end of WW2.
As our Founders noted, the people shall be free, so long as they remain virtuous enough to govern themselves. When they lose their virtue, they shall need more governance to which they must forfeit their freedom for their own good.
Freedom of religion is, therefore, a right in a free society only in which people hold our Constitution (or something similar) as the highest secular law, and not the law of any religion or ideology that contradicts it.
Once that happens, we can obviously no longer tolerate freedom of religion.
But, so what!
If that happens, we don’t have a basic law of the land, anyway!
We’re already seeing the current regime deteriorate freedom of religion in regards to sex, abortion, contraceptives and homosexuality, the primo --------- perversion of politics. How can Americans say that we actually do enjoy freedom of religion, with all these gov’t intrusions upon it?
(Sex actually isn’t a political issue. It’s a social issue in which gov’t has no business meddling and never has meddled, to any result but harm. A free people can shut Larry Flint and “Hustler Magazine” up, on the character of its content, since none of it is political, contrary to the Supreme Court ruling. This is where we started going wrong, IMO. Larry Flint was not protected by freedom of speech. He wasn’t saying anything!)
A free people really has no right to chose a religion that advocates killing all non-believers or is just plain stupid. Hopefully, a free people would know better than Islam.
Tolerating such a thing would be nothing but a prelude to the end of all religious freedom, which would, not so coincidentally, perhaps, be just fine with ---------.
Flip side: a free people does have a right to regulate its own social mores. It can ban homosexual conduct, pornography, baggy pants, “no shirt. no service”, vulgarity, whatever, on the basis of majority. This is the “grey area” or “hidden law” in all cults of law.
When people push the limits, other people respond, and if it comes to a head, we make a decision, case by case, building a “common law” of what’s generally considered acceptable by the majority: not a noisy minority or elitist judges.
When people push the limits, other people respond, and if it comes to a head, we make a decision, case by case, building a “common law” of what’s generally considered acceptable by the majority: not a noisy minority or elitist judges.
Pornography may be difficult to define. You may only know it when you see it. But when you do see it, you don’t have to call it “free of speech”!
Religion actually does “trump the Constitution”. A religion that does not contradict it presents no problem. One that does, however, cannot be tolerated under the “freedom of religion” clause any more than our Constitution could be tolerated in Sudan.
If it’s really “human rights” you want, then Sudan is doing just fine.
It has adopted Islam “at a collective level” and is compelling everyone to comply, just like Mo said. No one who believes in “human rights” has a thing to complain about without violating Sudanese “human rights”.
It has adopted Islam “at a collective level” and is compelling everyone to comply, just like Mo said. No one who believes in “human rights” has a thing to complain about without violating Sudanese “human rights”.
In America, however, I’d say that we actually do have problem, since people who make wedding cakes are no longer allowed to practice their faith but Muslims are!
Why wedding cakes seems to be such an issue but Merriam Ibrahim isn’t, is truly baffling and has more to do with “Human Lefts” than ‘human rights”!
I have depoliticized the above comment, as the gist of the debate is more important. ----
