|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 2, 2012 5:18:05 GMT -5
Actually I think Hulk does bring up a good point because at a certain point, religion does have to be controlled.
However, under the pure regulation of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This DOES create a very dangerous playing ground because, under that loose definition, "free exercise" of religion can essentially mean anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 2, 2012 13:14:23 GMT -5
Obviously violence isn't going to be tolerated, it's ridiculous to think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 2, 2012 13:24:03 GMT -5
Obviously violence isn't going to be tolerated, it's ridiculous to think otherwise. No I agree, but where does that line get drawn? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 2, 2012 13:33:09 GMT -5
Obviously violence isn't going to be tolerated, it's ridiculous to think otherwise. No I agree, but where does that line get drawn? Government forcing group A to pay for something they are morally against. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 2, 2012 13:35:27 GMT -5
No I agree, but where does that line get drawn? Government forcing group A to pay for something they are morally against. Well that's another issue, but shouldn't the line just be, "A government forcing a group to pay for.........." ? Does it even have to be something they're morally against? Wouldn't a group that's truly FOR something, volunteer to help pay for it? Why should we be forcing any group to pay for anything, really? I mean, I know you and I are very close on a lot of these issues. I just think it's an interesting discussion to have, when religions get to decline things but INDIVIDUALS who are against the thing in the first place, still have to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 2, 2012 14:11:35 GMT -5
Government forcing group A to pay for something they are morally against. Well that's another issue, but shouldn't the line just be, "A government forcing a group to pay for.........." ? Does it even have to be something they're morally against? Wouldn't a group that's truly FOR something, volunteer to help pay for it? Why should we be forcing any group to pay for anything, really? I mean, I know you and I are very close on a lot of these issues. I just think it's an interesting discussion to have, when religions get to decline things but INDIVIDUALS who are against the thing in the first place, still have to pay for it. I agree that government shouldn't force people to pay for anything. They really shouldn't be telling religious organizations what they can or cannot do as long as it does not harm another person. |
|
