Does Freedom of Religion Apply to All Religions?

[Paul Wharton]

With the Arab Spring turning into an islamic fundamentalist state
through democratic elections in Egypt, most Americans who view good
government as including Freedom of Religion and a democratic means of
obtaining a republic seem disillusioned and unable to explain how an
Egypt whose majority chooses islamic law in politics is wrong.

America's founding fathers held that each individual has the
inalienable individual rights to: Life, Liberty, Property, and the
Pursuit of Happiness. Derivative individual rights were included in
the U.S. Constitution; some of which are: Freedom of Speech, Freedom
of Press, and Freedom of Religion.

However, if I have a religion that says to seize control of commercial
planes and fly them at the infidels of the tallest buildings of the
world wherever such may be found, is that protected by Freedom of
Religion? If I have a religion that says to advance like a "divine
wind" and seek global hegemony by destroying the navy of the
strongest, potential, military opponent in the world, is that
protected by Freedom of Religion?

I think that the doctrines of various religions should have been
examined years ago--whether that is Radical Islam or Japanese
Shintoism. What should be determined by America is whether or not
these sets of belief violate any of the inalienable individual rights
of its people. If a mosque in the United States is
threatening...say...the Life and Property of American citizens, then
it forfeits its Freedom of Religion status.

Considering that most religions adhere to a written text, it is a
simple matter to read what a possible terrorist is promoting. Judaism
and Christianity present some military encounters, mainly as history
lessons. However, they advocate the proselytizing of the religions'
beliefs through persuasively, non-violent means. Islam and Shinto
(which was prevalent back during WWII) encourage their believers to
spread the doctrines through *violent* means that are dangerous to the
Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness of Americans.
This is why Freedom of Religion should not apply to fundamentalist or
aggressive muslims.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

[Paul Robinson]

On Jun 27, 3:44 am, Paul Wharton <paulwhar...@comcast.net> wrote:
[Wharton] With the Arab Spring turning into an islamic fundamentalist
state through democratic elections
[Wharton] in Egypt, most Americans who view good government as

including Freedom of Religion and

[Wharton] a democratic means of obtaining a republic seem

disillusioned and unable to explain how an

[Wharton] Egypt whose majority chooses islamic law in politics is
wrong.

It's not wrong. They have every right to choose to screw up their
country any way they please. The United States is not the world's
policeman and whatever Egypt does or does not do has very little
effect on our country. Iran wants to build nuclear reactors or North
Korea wants to build improved missiles. You say that we should be
watching these countries you'll get no argument from me. Those
countries have acted transnationally to the detriment of other
countries including the United States and we do have a right, in our
own self-interest to be concerned about their actions.

[Wharton] America's founding fathers held that each individual has

the inalienable individual rights to: Life,

[Wharton] Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 Derivative individual rights were included in

[Wharton] the U.S. Constitution; some of which are: Freedom of
Speech, Freedom of Press,
[Wharton] and Freedom of Religion.

And also the constitution is supposed to be one of limited powers
granted to the federal government. Investigating countries that
represent a threat to us or to countries we have treaty
responsibilities is one thing. Trying to decide whether what some
other country wants to have as a state religion is acceptable by the
United States is probably almost as nasty an act as China running
roughshod over Tibet.

[Wharton] However, if I have a religion that says to seize control of

commercial planes and fly them at

[Wharton] the infidels of the tallest buildings of the world wherever

such may be found, is that

[Wharton] protected by Freedom of Religion?

Here you go pulling non-sequiturs because my bullshit detector "went
off like a fucking anvil" to quote the robber in Die Hard. The
Muslim religion did not seize control of commercial airplanes and fly
them into buildings - a point I made on this exact same newsgroup six
years ago - 19 employees of Osama Bin Laden did.
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/1c6ca269cdbd1b96/1955464230c11751?hl=en&q=territory+of+hawaii++group:humanities.philosophy.objectivism+author:Paul+author:Robinson#1955464230c11751
http://tinyurl.com/CommentOn911Attack

" I already pointed out two things you very carefully missed. First,
19 men who were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and allegedly
employees of Osama Bin Laden committed hari-kari in order to destroy
three buildings and try for a fourth. Second, when it happened: the
11th day of the 9th month of the 21st Century. I also noted the
attacks included my home town, Arlington, Virginia. As a result of
the government of Afghanistan refusing to turn him over, that would
very easily justify a declaration of war against that country. And
if you want to argue that the country they are from is responsible, it
would justify declaring war against Saudi Arabia.
"However, as it has not been shown that these people were acting on
behalf of some other country, it does not justify attacking some other
country simply because some number of their residents are adherents of
that religion."
- Paul Robinson, "Re: Kolker is Right", 2006-12-21

Nor does it mean that religion is responsible for those 20 nutcases.
Well, 21 if you count the guy who couldn't get on the plane that the
others crashed in Shanksville, PA.

You want to argue that the Muslim religion does so support such
actions. Fine, show your evidence. Cite the chapter and verse of the
Koran where it so does. But, just because the Bible sanctions killing
a woman who isn't a virgin who lied about it to get a husband
(Deuteronomy 22:11-22), does not mean that people who are Christians
approve of killing non-virgin women who lie about their virginity or
anything similar. So you shouldn't be tarring the whole of people who
support that religion any more than people who support Christianity.
They're just different forms of deluded people believing in a
nonentity.

[Wharton] If I have a religion that says to advance like a "divine
wind" and
[Wharton] seek global hegemony by destroying the navy of the
strongest,
[Wharton] potential, military opponent in the world, is that

protected by Freedom of Religion?

You really think any of those countries have even the close
possibility to destroy the U.S. Navy? That's like claiming two guys
and a pickup truck are a serious commercial threat to J.B. Hunt.

[Wharton] I think that the doctrines of various religions should
have
[Wharton] been examined years ago--whether that is Radical Islam or
Japanese Shintoism.

We need to include Christianity in that too, it's got a lot of really
nasty things that it supports too.

[Wharton] What should be determined by America is whether or not
these
[Wharton] sets of belief violate any of the inalienable individual

rights of its people.  If a mosque

[Wharton] in the United States is threatening...say...the Life and
Property of American citizens,
[Wharton] then it forfeits its Freedom of Religion status.

A mosque is a particular building owned by a group of people. You
can't say that those people lose their rights simply because other
people who believe in the same religion committed criminal acts
including terrorism and murder. We don't hold the Catholic Church
responsible for Catholic Timothy McVeigh bombing the Oklahoma City
Courthouse. Group punishments are not tolerated by the
Constitution.

And further, if you're going to take someone's rights away, we do have
a requirement for due process. Your typical mindset is to say that
you don't like some group, organization or religion, and subsequently
decide that their rights should be terminated without trial or bother
for other legal niceties like due process, evidence and burden of
proof.

[Tomm Carr]

On 06/27/2012 12:44 AM, Paul Wharton wrote:
> With the Arab Spring turning into an islamic fundamentalist state
> through democratic elections in Egypt, most Americans who view good
> government as including Freedom of Religion and a democratic means of
> obtaining a republic seem disillusioned and unable to explain how an
> Egypt whose majority chooses islamic law in politics is wrong.

One very good reason is the Liberal-minded among us have constantly
chastised us about making moral evaluations like that. They have equated
"tolerance" with "acceptance" for so long, they genuinely can't see the
difference.

> America's founding fathers held that each individual has the
> inalienable individual rights to: Life, Liberty, Property, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness. Derivative individual rights were included in
> the U.S. Constitution; some of which are: Freedom of Speech, Freedom
> of Press, and Freedom of Religion.
>
> However, if I have a religion that says to seize control of commercial
> planes and fly them at the infidels of the tallest buildings of the
> world wherever such may be found, is that protected by Freedom of
> Religion? If I have a religion that says to advance like a "divine
> wind" and seek global hegemony by destroying the navy of the
> strongest, potential, military opponent in the world, is that
> protected by Freedom of Religion?

Religious tolerance is so much in the American DNA it becomes almost
instinctual. We forget that tolerance is not a unilateral process.
Religions in America exist in an atmosphere of tolerance not because of
any legal requirements but because they have all accepted the idea to
tolerate each other. A religion, or any ideology, that is intolerant of
others, cannot itself be tolerated -- not and continue to be true to the
concept of tolerance.

Yeah, it sounds contradictory -- but if you examine it closely, it
becomes self-evident.

--
TommCatt
Truth: That which most easily appeals to the fears, hopes and prejudices
of the hearer: i.e., a lie.
Lie: That which causes its utterer to be reviled: i.e., the truth. --
Thorax's Locutionary Field Guide to Earth.