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

kylith

Americans have no right to freedom from religion. Suck it, non-Christians

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/texas-gov-rick-perry-americans-have-no-right-to-freedom-from-religion/

Who was it said that when fascism came to America it'd be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible? Whoever he was, I don't think he was far wrong.

Turtwig

The scary thing is the number of people who'll likely still vote for him.:(

kylith

I wonder if he's planning on criminalising atheism and mandating that ALL US citizens MUST be a member of a religion.

knotknowbody

kylith wrote: »

Americans have no right to freedom from religion. Suck it, non-Christians

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/texas-gov-rick-perry-americans-have-no-right-to-freedom-from-religion/

Who was it said that when fascism came to America it'd be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible? Whoever he was, I don't think he was far wrong.

I don't really see anything wrong with what he said.
-> he is not saying you have to be religious and practice a religion.
-> he is saying that religious people should not be forced to abandon their traditions for fear of offending others.

You are still free to choose any religion or none if you wish, just don't get offended if you see religious symbols as you go about your daily life.

I am an atheist and I would consider myself to have freedom of religion as I have the right to choose, but not freedom from religion because religious symbols, buildings, practitioners and promoters are everywhere, and I don't have a right to expect these to be removed.

I don't get offended by these, i think this is what he was trying to say.

kylith

But it does go against the constitutional separation of church and state, and one could certainly call it exclusionary.

knotknowbody

kylith wrote: »

But it does go against the constitutional separation of church and state, and one could certainly call it exclusionary.

I don't really see how, he is simply stating that everyone has the right to choose to be of a religion on not, those that choose to be of a religion have the right to practice it openly, those that choose to be of no religion should be tolerant to religious practitioners and should not expect, nor do they have a right to a world free of religious symbolism.

The Christmas tree in the classroom or school officials using religious greetings is not really the state or church, it is the individual official or teacher expressing their religious beliefs, I don't really see a problem so long as students and staff of other beliefs are also allowed express themselves freely.

Separation of church and state is complex and it will be a long time before it is completed fully, and it may also not always be positive, many people in the church have done immense amounts of good over the years despite the bad eggs. The good work these people done would have been hugely costly and complex for the state to do, so some cooperation between the two may be a good thing.

I don't know that's just my opinion but I'm very liberal and hard to offend, I completely believe people should be allowed do and believe what makes them happy as long as it doesn't harm others, nobody should be offended by a Christmas tree or a seasonal greeting, to me saying Merry Christmas is not much different to saying have a good weekend.

kylith

knotknowbody wrote: »

I don't really see how, he is simply stating that everyone has the right to choose to be of a religion on not, those that choose to be of a religion have the right to practice it openly, those that choose to be of no religion should be tolerant to religious practitioners and should not expect, nor do they have a right to a world free of religious symbolism.

The Christmas tree in the classroom or school officials using religious greetings is not really the state or church, it is the individual official or teacher expressing their religious beliefs, I don't really see a problem so long as students and staff of other beliefs are also allowed express themselves freely.

Separation of church and state is complex and it will be a long time before it is completed fully, and it may also not always be positive, many people in the church have done immense amounts of good over the years despite the bad eggs. The good work these people done would have been hugely costly and complex for the state to do, so some cooperation between the two may be a good thing.

I don't know that's just my opinion but I'm very liberal and hard to offend, I completely believe people should be allowed do and believe what makes them happy as long as it doesn't harm others, nobody should be offended by a Christmas tree or a seasonal greeting, to me saying Merry Christmas is not much different to saying have a good weekend.

I would consider a Christmas tree to be an aspect of religion in school. I would be of the opinion that it is all or nothing; either you forgo religious symbols or you make sure that all the bases are covered re: Hannukah, Eid, Kwanzaa, and any other mid-winter festivals. To just cover Christmas is, in my opinion, exclusionary; it's saying to kids of other religions 'your religion is not as important as Christianity'.

Zombrex

knotknowbody wrote: »

I don't really see anything wrong with what he said.
-> he is not saying you have to be religious and practice a religion.
-> he is saying that religious people should not be forced to abandon their traditions for fear of offending others.

No he is not saying that, he is saying that the US Constitution does not protect people from state sponsored religion or religious events (this nonsense is all part of the "war" on Christmas where State religious displays were banned)

Of course the US Constitution does actually say exactly that -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That is the freedom from religion clause, and you will notice it is at the very start. The State cannot promote a religion, no matter how popular that religion is.

Using State workers or State property (such as public school with public teachers) to promote a religion (such as Christmas prayers or nativity displays) is against the constitution.

All citizens of the US have a constitutionally protected right not to have the State promote a religion to them.

Zombrex

knotknowbody wrote: »

The Christmas tree in the classroom or school officials using religious greetings is not really the state or church, it is the individual official or teacher expressing their religious beliefs, I don't really see a problem so long as students and staff of other beliefs are also allowed express themselves freely.

That is stupid. You could just as easily say that when a police officer illegally profiles a black person that was just the "individual officer expressing their suspicions", or that the CIA agent who was spying on US citizens was just acting as a private citizen going for a walk.

All public teachers are agents of the State when they are working. All public schools are State property.

They represent the State and are bound by the laws that bind the State.

The State is nothing other than the people who represent it. If the State cannot do something then by definition the agents of the State cannot, otherwise the idea that the State cannot do something is irrelevant.

Flier

The idea of christmas trees (or at least evergreen decorations) pre date Christianity AFAIK. Which is good. 'Cos I like them

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Who was it said that when fascism came to America it'd be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible?

From the page on Sinclair Lewis:

Wikipedia wrote:

Many variants of this exist, but the earliest known incident of such a comment appears to be a partial quote from James Waterman Wise, Jr., reported in a 1936 issue of 'The Christian Century' that:

[...] in a recent address here before the liberal John Reed club said that Hearst and Coughlin are the two chief exponents of fascism in America. "If fascism comes", he added, "it will not be identified with any 'shirt' movement, nor with an 'insignia'", but it will probably be "wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution." [...]

Geomy

kylith wrote: »

I would consider a Christmas tree to be an aspect of religion in school. I would be of the opinion that it is all or nothing; either you forgo religious symbols or you make sure that all the bases are covered re: Hannukah, Eid, Kwanzaa, and any other mid-winter festivals. To just cover Christmas is, in my opinion, exclusionary; it's saying to kids of other religions 'your religion is not as important as Christianity'.

Whatever happened to seasons greetings and all that ?

nagirrac

Perry is confusing the first and second clauses of the First Amendment, but a confused Perry is nothing new.

The first clause prohibits the establishment of a national or state religion, and prohibits discrimination based on religion. The second clause protects the right of the individual to free expression of their religion. The second clause does not mean state employees have the right to erect religious symbols on state property, but it does mean state employees, like any citizen, have the right to wear discrete religious symbols, like a cross around their necks. Common sense is all that's called for as respecting all people, regardless of faith or no faith, is the America that the founding fathers had in mind.

kylith

Geomy wrote: »

Whatever happened to seasons greetings and all that ?

I think he thinks that using something like 'Season's Greetings', which covers all the festivals, is part of the perceived attack on religion by us 'orrid atheists.

goose2005

The new law states that students and school officials have the right to use religious greetings like “Merry Christmas” and display various religious holiday symbols on school grounds.

So the Obama-SS can't summarily execute Christians who say Merry Christmas anymore? And I look forward to seeing these http://eidway.com/ everywhere Rick goes

ShooterSF

Id love to get a state job in Texas just to see the confusion on peoples faces when I wish them happy holiday every Friday

Geomy

kylith wrote: »

I think he thinks that using something like 'Season's Greetings', which covers all the festivals, is part of the perceived attack on religion by us 'orrid atheists.

Sure that's fcked up, do you remember the old Christmas budweiser advert, wishing you and yours the very best this holiday season. ...

I remember asking my mum why they didn't mention Christmas in the advert, she said that holiday season covers everything. ..

That was acceptable to me, as I often read in these threads "just don't be a dick"

Oh it's hard to please some people.

Brian Shanahan

knotknowbody wrote: »

I don't really see anything wrong with what he said.
-> he is not saying you have to be religious and practice a religion.
-> he is saying that religious people should not be forced to abandon their traditions for fear of offending others.

You are still free to choose any religion or none if you wish, just don't get offended if you see religious symbols as you go about your daily life.

I am an atheist and I would consider myself to have freedom of religion as I have the right to choose, but not freedom from religion because religious symbols, buildings, practitioners and promoters are everywhere, and I don't have a right to expect these to be removed.

I don't get offended by these, i think this is what he was trying to say.

By saying that there is no freedom from religion he is denying that there is a first ammendment to the constitution. And the law by it's nature is breaking the wall of seperation clause in the first ammendment.

If you can see nothing wrong with that law, you really need to get yourself to Saudi Arabia, and see what is the result of the likes of Rick Perry getting actual power (the Governor of Texas is as powerful as the Irish president, executive power is in the hands of the Lt. Governor, who is usually Democrat, so Texas republicans usually get the credit for Democrat work, as most non-Texans don't realise this fact).

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

The second clause does not mean state employees have the right to erect religious symbols on state property, but it does mean state employees, like any citizen, have the right to wear discrete religious symbols, like a cross around their necks.

So long as their discrete religious symbols are discreet, I think everyone will be happy.

Flier wrote: »

The idea of christmas trees (or at least evergreen decorations) pre date Christianity AFAIK. Which is good. 'Cos I like them

Yep, it's funny how much of the 'Christmas tradition' is actually stolen from pagan sun-worshippers. Isn't there an edict in the bible ('somewhere, in the back' as Rev. Lovejoy once said) against decorating a tree and taking it inside one's home?


...one quick DuckDuckGo later...

Jeremiah 10:2-4 wrote:

Thus says the Lord: “Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.