Originally posted by: Tiptup
A country is not allowed to dictate its own policies or determine its own laws in your mind? Should we simply invent new "rights" in response to each decision that you happen to personally disagree with?
Originally posted by: JediSage
We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected.
Then where does that logic stop, exactly? Does every last, little, stupid religion in this country get its own display of the same size? Should a public forum accommodate anything and everything the "public" may want to place there? No restrictions whatsoever?
Should the Christians of America simply "go away" because 1 group feels under-represented or offended? I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.
So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?
The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever. We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.
Originally posted by: JediSage
If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.
We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected.
Then where does that logic stop, exactly? Does every last, little, stupid religion in this country get its own display of the same size? Should a public forum accommodate anything and everything the "public" may want to place there? No restrictions whatsoever?
Should the Christians of America simply "go away" because 1 group feels under-represented or offended? I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.
And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.
So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?
The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever. We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.
Originally posted by: JediSage
If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.
A country is not allowed to dictate its own policies or determine its own laws in your mind? Should we simply invent new "rights" in response to each decision that you happen to personally disagree with?
We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.