Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
secularism as "state-sponsored censorship". Instead, secularism is the precondition for protecting against religiously sponsored censorship.
and btw, secularism is a principle laid down in your nation's first amendement in the Bill of Rights.
|
Yes, it is. But government-sponsored education is not. In fact, it is not stated anywhere in the constitution of the U.S.A.
This is only a problem because the government was unconstitutionally granted fiat powers over education.
Quote:
|
The state should guarantee the free practice of religion (which is okay with me as long as that practice does not require me to a.) witness or b) participate in it, or c) to compromise my own freedom in favour of it - an individual's freedom ends where he/she starts to limit the freedom of others inf avour of their own). But from that can not be concluded that the state/ congress shall act in favour of rfelgious establoishements, or pass laws favouring any religion's demands and interests. And that is not just a conclusion, but is written there black on white.
|
I totally agree, with the minor exception of point "a". The reason has a great deal to do with the legal practice currently excersised in the U.S.
I would argue that one is not exempted from witnessing others practicing their beliefs.
To me, that is a ridiculous notion. Even extremists are not harming anyone by practising their beliefs in public. This is why we tolerate neo-nazi and KKK demonstrations. The subscribers of such beliefs only invite further humiliation and ridcule upon themselves by making their ignorant philosphies public.
Witnessing others practising their beliefs goes hand in hand with the inviolability of personal freedom.
It is all a matter of personal choice. People should have the right to attempt to convince others to think like they do, so long as they do not force the issue and leave when asked to.
Jehovah's witnesses are a pain in my a$$ because they come to my door several times a month and ask me to subscribe to their philosophy. I always politely turn them down or engage them in a lively debate concerning their religion to no avail.
But they are not violating my personal freedom. I can always close the door on them if I wish.
Legal professionals do not see this the same way. Do you remember when I wrote to you about the "culture of victimhood" in the U.S. ?
This is largely due to the legal profession. They can easily make a multi-milllion dollar case out of some person being offended by some other person's beliefs or their practice of said beliefs.
The U.S. legal code occupies an entire wing of the library of congress. There is no person on earth who understands it in its' entirety, but it is the law that governs us. What a paradox that is! We are governed by a law that no one can understand?
Once again we see the indestructible mechanics of capitalism at work. The legal professionals are beneficiaries of a complex legal code. By no small coincidence, most U.S. legislators, now and in the past, are/were lawyers.
Getting back to the point, these lawyers/legislators are greatly benefitted by a legal code that allows things like civil lawsuits over practise of personal beliefs to take place. As such, the preservation of personal freedoms has been distorted.
The truth of the matter is that one should have the frredom to be affected or unaffected by others' belefs as they choose. And this does include children, and their parents.
Finally, I posit that no state can ever administer a truly objective, or even effective, belief system. Look at the Soviet Union. Despite cradle-to-grave indoctrination in socialist philosphy, there was a black market, and a strong revolutionary presence, and even a military anti-establishment presence.
Keep in mind that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, as I would like to see your views.