Freedom of Religion: Crash Course Government and Politics #24
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
TX
Somehow we let a lot of lawyers warp a pretty simple concept. -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-. In other words, the federal government can not enact laws that either require adherence to a particular religion or punish anyone for a particular religion. Beyond that. the government should not interfere with religious practices and local religious choices that do not violate non religious laws. Somehow this became a strict separation where the government could not acknowledge, promote and participate in the religious lives of citizens. This somehow led to an agenda to impose an absence of religion. which seems to violate the amendment itself in -prohibiting the free exercise therof-. Also, there evolved an idea that people have a right to an absence of religion. This is not stated anywhere in the amendment what so ever as atheism is not a religion and is not covered in any way in the amendment specifically dealing with religion. On the other hand, if Atheism is a religion, it should not be imposed by the Government under the Amendment. I think it that Government acknowledgement and even promotion of local religious traditions, practices and imagery is just fine and likely a benefit to our society. As long as this is democratically determined and there is no compulsion to attend or exclusion. If a community is Satanic, they should be able to petition their city or town leaders to display imagery or festivals on public land. If a school wants to hold a Christian prayer or students want to meet for a Muslim prayer group, the government under the amendment should only have to avoid requiring attendance or participation or punishing those who choose not to participate. Citizen's hurt feelings or having to be subjected to the traditions and religious ideas of others should not be a concern of the federal government. Citizens can make these local changes themselves democratically with the election of their leaders if they are unhappy with the events, practices, imagery on public property that is paid for by the citizens. There is as much right to a freedom from religion as a vegan has to a freedom from meat. Freely choose not to partake of it. that is the extent of your right.
reply
Somehow we let a lot of lawyers warp a pretty simple concept. -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-. In other words, the federal government can not enact laws that either require adherence to a particular religion or punish anyone for a particular religion. Beyond that. the government should not interfere with religious practices and local religious choices that do not violate non religious laws. Somehow this became a strict separation where the government could not acknowledge, promote and participate in the religious lives of citizens. This somehow led to an agenda to impose an absence of religion. which seems to violate the amendment itself in -prohibiting the free exercise therof-. Also, there evolved an idea that people have a right to an absence of religion. This is not stated anywhere in the amendment what so ever as atheism is not a religion and is not covered in any way in the amendment specifically dealing with religion. On the other hand, if Atheism is a religion, it should not be imposed by the Government under the Amendment. I think it that Government acknowledgement and even promotion of local religious traditions, practices and imagery is just fine and likely a benefit to our society. As long as this is democratically determined and there is no compulsion to attend or exclusion. If a community is Satanic, they should be able to petition their city or town leaders to display imagery or festivals on public land. If a school wants to hold a Christian prayer or students want to meet for a Muslim prayer group, the government under the amendment should only have to avoid requiring attendance or participation or punishing those who choose not to participate. Citizen's hurt feelings or having to be subjected to the traditions and religious ideas of others should not be a concern of the federal government. Citizens can make these local changes themselves democratically with the election of their leaders if they are unhappy with the events, practices, imagery on public property that is paid for by the citizens. There is as much right to a freedom from religion as a vegan has to a freedom from meat. Freely choose not to partake of it. that is the extent of your right.
reply
Ent3rpris3
You say that it being the first clause of the first amendment of the bill of rights indicates a certain degree of importance. While still higher up on the list thus denoting a sense of urgency and importance, it was actually the 3rd proposed amendment, the first being a logistical explanation about the allocation of members of the House of Representatives, the second being the now 27th Amendment, which dealt with the pay of Congress. Assuming the positioning of the amendment is an indication of perceived value to the framers, they felt that limiting congress' ability to give themselves outlandish and unchecked pay raises was more important than one's ability to practice religion or speech freely.
reply
You say that it being the first clause of the first amendment of the bill of rights indicates a certain degree of importance. While still higher up on the list thus denoting a sense of urgency and importance, it was actually the 3rd proposed amendment, the first being a logistical explanation about the allocation of members of the House of Representatives, the second being the now 27th Amendment, which dealt with the pay of Congress. Assuming the positioning of the amendment is an indication of perceived value to the framers, they felt that limiting congress' ability to give themselves outlandish and unchecked pay raises was more important than one's ability to practice religion or speech freely.
reply
ddale20
Religion holds a society together as long as it's not extreme. When we believe in nothing, we worship man. That leads to people like Stalin and Hitler. It's such a fine line to not push ideals on people, but a society has to have values and morals. And believe me, they can't come from man, but from a higher power. That's why the Constitution starts with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are CREATED equal and that they are endowed by their CREATOR. can anything be more evident that they believed in a higher power?
reply
Religion holds a society together as long as it's not extreme. When we believe in nothing, we worship man. That leads to people like Stalin and Hitler. It's such a fine line to not push ideals on people, but a society has to have values and morals. And believe me, they can't come from man, but from a higher power. That's why the Constitution starts with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are CREATED equal and that they are endowed by their CREATOR. can anything be more evident that they believed in a higher power?
reply
bubuji
Politicians and religious master brainwashing will guarantee when your time come you will taste the real hell -----, your angel, jibril, guardian, soul, all has eye witnessed in sky well you may say I'm liar but i dare your religious teacher, preacher don't have third eye to view those angel, my opinion everyone has own choosing today don't push whatever they dislike
reply
Politicians and religious master brainwashing will guarantee when your time come you will taste the real hell -----, your angel, jibril, guardian, soul, all has eye witnessed in sky well you may say I'm liar but i dare your religious teacher, preacher don't have third eye to view those angel, my opinion everyone has own choosing today don't push whatever they dislike
reply
Faith
The state cannot have an antagonistic view of my children-s faith, if it is mandatory for me to pay school taxes when buying a home. Give me a refund of my school taxes if they are going to violate my children-s religious freedoms in schools that way I can use that tax money to fund a school that will uphold my child-s constitutional freedom of religion.
reply
The state cannot have an antagonistic view of my children-s faith, if it is mandatory for me to pay school taxes when buying a home. Give me a refund of my school taxes if they are going to violate my children-s religious freedoms in schools that way I can use that tax money to fund a school that will uphold my child-s constitutional freedom of religion.
reply
BibleNutter
1: 16 That last part is literally impossible.
-. nor does it write its laws based on any religious edicts. -, because how can you write any law without determining right and wrong?
You have to have a belief system in order to establish a moral code. Even atheism is a religion. But how do you determine right from wrong without God?
reply
1: 16 That last part is literally impossible.
-. nor does it write its laws based on any religious edicts. -, because how can you write any law without determining right and wrong?
You have to have a belief system in order to establish a moral code. Even atheism is a religion. But how do you determine right from wrong without God?
reply
XI
Well hot damn I'm FORCED to pray in my class everyday, and if i don't i WILL BE FORCED, to go to the front of the class to pray OUTLOUD. Not to seem overly exaggerating, this actually happened, and in my country its legal, and its illegal to not have a religion
reply
Well hot damn I'm FORCED to pray in my class everyday, and if i don't i WILL BE FORCED, to go to the front of the class to pray OUTLOUD. Not to seem overly exaggerating, this actually happened, and in my country its legal, and its illegal to not have a religion
reply
this
people shouldn't have to make other people feel bad for what you believe in. or really any god you believe in. or gods. doesn't matter how many. you shouldn't have to feel bad for that. that is all. that is all from me.
reply
people shouldn't have to make other people feel bad for what you believe in. or really any god you believe in. or gods. doesn't matter how many. you shouldn't have to feel bad for that. that is all. that is all from me.
reply
Jay
In my experience conservatives are the only ones who ever attacked my religious freedom or freedom of thought, never liberals (even when I was a fundamentalist christian)
reply
In my experience conservatives are the only ones who ever attacked my religious freedom or freedom of thought, never liberals (even when I was a fundamentalist christian)
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
