• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry: Americans have no right to freedom from religion

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sandorski said:
You don't need a void, you need the freedom from other religion. If that means all Religion, so be it, how can there be that freedom if one is forced to have one?

As for decorations and what not, the issue is about promotion, not by decree, but by the use of Public property. When there are Churches/Religious structures all over the place that exist without even paying Taxes, why TF do they need to put their shit on Public Property?
Click to expand...

So if someone wants to put a christmas tree up at their work and it's a government related office which churches are paying for that?

Hell, people don't even seem to know why establishment of a state religion was prohibited to begin with or what that meant.

"Merry Christmas"!
"I'm gonna sue!"
 
sandorski said:
If that means all Religion, so be it, how can there be that freedom if one is forced to have one?
Click to expand...

No one is forcing you to have one, however the often invoked Establishment Clause isn't the only thing in that Amendment. Pointedly ignored is the Free Exercise Clause, which is what allows you to NOT be forced to have a religion AND allows others to practice, and if that means "Merry Christmas" suck it up. You don't have to celebrate it. No one is forcing you or anyone else to. What many really want is to silence others so they don't have to listen at all to what they disagree with. That's f'd up.
 
waggy said:
lol

/facepalm
Click to expand...

What's to facepalm? Can you have Freedom of Religion without Freedom from Religion?

This has nothing to do with not being exposed to someone elses expression of Religion, it's to do with someone having the Right to not have a Religion.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
No one is forcing you to have one, however the often invoked Establishment Clause isn't the only thing in that Amendment. Pointedly ignored is the Free Exercise Clause, which is what allows you to NOT be forced to have a religion AND allows others to practice, and if that means "Merry Christmas" suck it up. You don't have to celebrate it. No one is forcing you or anyone else to. What many really want is to silence others so they don't have to listen at all to what they disagree with. That's f'd up.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue at all. The controversies regarding the various expressions is all about them being on Public Property, giving them a tacit approval by government. Someone saying "Merry XMas" has nothing to do with it.
 
First Amendment and Religion

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
 
eskimospy said:
Lol. Anyone else remember spidey saying "Rick Perry WILL be your next president"?
Click to expand...

Vividly. This thread should be "stickie'd" so that we can check after Nov. 7, 2016 and get ready for the 2020 prediction the Oracle of ATPN.

"Sorry Rick, if the government can't force/compel a citizen to adhere to a particular religion then we do indeed have freedom from religion."
 
sandorski said:
What's to facepalm? Can you have Freedom of Religion without Freedom from Religion?

This has nothing to do with not being exposed to someone elses expression of Religion, it's to do with someone having the Right to not have a Religion.
Click to expand...

Lol, why are we still having this discussion in freaking 2013?

Do we need to reevaluate whether the Earth orbits the Sun too?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So if someone wants to put a christmas tree up at their work and it's a government related office which churches are paying for that?

Hell, people don't even seem to know why establishment of a state religion was prohibited to begin with or what that meant.

"Merry Christmas"!
"I'm gonna sue!"
Click to expand...

The sillier part is that apparently the federal government can establish Christmas as a holiday, but government employees cannot celebrate the holiday on government property 😀

This is probably why they get the day off :sneaky:
 
sandorski said:
That's not the issue at all. The controversies regarding the various expressions is all about them being on Public Property, giving them a tacit approval by government. Someone saying "Merry XMas" has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I want to know how someone having a christmas tree in their office forces you to adopt a religion.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I want to know how someone having a christmas tree in their office forces you to adopt a religion.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with Christmas trees per se because they are essentially commercial. I think it's probably best for government to stay away from them, however, because it becomes this whole PC thing where if they have a Christmas tree they have to have a Hannukah bush and some symbol for every group or they complain. It's best to have none of them. The Christmas tree, however, I think is not of a problem of Constitutional dimension.

If it's , say, a nativity scene, then it may be a Constitutional issue. If it was in someone's office, that's probably fine. If it's in the common area, then it's a religious expression funded by the government and it does constitute endorsement of religion.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I don't have a problem with Christmas trees per se because they are essentially commercial. I think it's probably best for government to stay away from them, however, because it becomes this whole PC thing where if they have a Christmas tree they have to have a Hannukah bush and some symbol for every group or they complain. It's best to have none of them. The Christmas tree, however, I think is not of a problem of Constitutional dimension.

If it's , say, a nativity scene, then it may be a Constitutional issue. If it was in someone's office, that's probably fine. If it's in the common area, then it's a religious expression funded by the government and it does constitute endorsement of religion.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court agrees with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_v._Greater_Pittsburgh_ACLU
 
Why can't a town, city, state with majority christians spend tax money on christmas shit? Seems like they wanted it, and there's certainly a lot of other waste. Surely if you don't like it you can just leave Texas. I know there are certain logistical challenges to immediate upheaval of your life, but it's not like you can't live with a few more years of Christmas while you plan your epic departure. If it's not about the money then you're just being petty and vindictive ("oh since i can't talk any sense to them i'm going to piss on their nativity scene")
 
justoh said:
Why can't a town, city, state with majority christians spend tax money on christmas shit? Seems like they wanted it, and there's certainly a lot of other waste. Surely if you don't like it you can just leave Texas. I know there are certain logistical challenges to immediate upheaval of your life, but it's not like you can't live with a few more years of Christmas while you plan your epic departure. If it's not about the money then you're just being petty and vindictive ("oh since i can't talk any sense to them i'm going to piss on their nativity scene")
Click to expand...

If you don't like it my way, you could leave... this is your 'argument'? Did you drop out of elementary school or something?
 
justoh said:
Why can't a town, city, state with majority christians spend tax money on christmas shit? Seems like they wanted it, and there's certainly a lot of other waste. Surely if you don't like it you can just leave Texas. I know there are certain logistical challenges to immediate upheaval of your life, but it's not like you can't live with a few more years of Christmas while you plan your epic departure. If it's not about the money then you're just being petty and vindictive ("oh since i can't talk any sense to them i'm going to piss on their nativity scene")
Click to expand...

Why should anyone leave because some people in Texas don't want to follow SCOTUS ruling ( the law) applying the 1st to states.
 
Joke is on him! Even most Christians I know focus more on the secular aspects of Christmas than they do the religious aspects. It's more or less lost its "true" meaning (true meaning according to Christians).

Also, who cares?
 
Oldgamer said:
But then....
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. -- The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson 1786"

Quote: "If you read the article carefully, you'll see that he saying freedom of religion does not equate to freedom from religion. It's the usual twisted hypocrisy from the Christian Right. They want liberty--as long as it falls in line with their beliefs. So the liberty to say "Merry Christmas" at a public school does not equate with the liberty not to have to hear it if you choose."

It's all semantics and it seems Rick Perry is twisting the words and their intentions to fit his ideological narrative.

Link to the article
Click to expand...

The Jefferson quote seems to support someone's right to say 'Merry Christmas' (or happy 10-year-old suicide bomber-day) or any other religious expression. If you're calling the liberty to say those things 'Religion', then no, you seemingly don't have freedom from that. I'm sure there's some outrage around here somewhere though...
 
So Gov. Rick Perry is pushing his unique interpretation of/from "religious freedom" like the good crusading Christian he is, using his high office to stump his wares like a carnival barker of old using his megaphone. Just imagine what he'd do if he were POTUS doing what he does best. Just what we need: a religous zealot in control of a huge nuclear arsenal and the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Iran should be so "lucky".
 
hans030390 said:
Joke is on him! Even most Christians I know focus more on the secular aspects of Christmas than they do the religious aspects. It's more or less lost its "true" meaning (true meaning according to Christians).
Click to expand...
your issue is you don`t know any true Christians!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top