What is the value in Freedom of Religion if you are an Atheist?

[bryant69]

Or, to put it another way, what purpose does allowing freedom of religion serve? How does it make things better to allow people to worship as they choose (or does it)?

Bryant

[niyad]

1. freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion

[jobycom]

3. yes. nt

[Autonomy]

14. Only if the FROM is the gov't.

Remember, the Bill of Rights only guarantees rights in re: the individual's protection from the gov't.

[China_cat]

25. And in the days of the founding of this country

only adult male land-owning church MEMBERS were permitted to vote.

That's one reason freedom FROM religion is an important part of freedom OF religion. The most obvious though is that freedom of religion guarantees me just that...that I can choose ANY religion. Even -none-.

[Autonomy]

34. Not to argue about trifles

but not choosing a religion, or choosing not to be relgious, OR choosing not to believe in a god is not freedom FROM religion.

I am just pointing out that the First Amendment protects you from the gov't pushing religion down your throat, but it doesn't protect you from me pushing religion down your throat (figuratively, of course), were I so inclined.

[China_cat]

37. But that's where the rest of the first amendment comes to my

defense. You might have freedom of speech but it doesn't mean I have to give you a platform to say it...doesn't guarantee you an audience. And trespass and harassment laws take care of the rest.

As for it not being freedom FROM religion, yes it is. It is the freedom from being required to go to a church, on pain of jail time for not. (Check your history) It's freedom from the threat of being executed for not belonging to THE church (check Quakers in Mass. colony hanged for being Quakers). Yes, that may be government, but it is freedom from being considered a criminal for refusing religion. The rest is all civil and I have lots of remedies to keep you from forcing your delusions on me.

[Autonomy]

40. example: you can't sue Wal-Mart

if their greeter wishes you Merry Christmas. You don't have freedom from religion in general. There ARE people who believe the 1st Amendment says that...

[China_cat]

56. True. But I have a more powerful option

I can -not- shop there. I can deny them my money. (Which I do) I can tell others about their policies and persuade them not to shop there either (which I do)

And it doesn't matter what other believe the first says. What matters is that I don't have to include myself in their delusions, or even pretend to. I don't have to have them in my home or knowingly do business with them.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Freedom From Religion Foundation

http://www.ffrf.org

And in time for Veteran's Day, the Atheists in Foxholes Monument:
http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/

[Kilroy003]

31. That was what I was gonna say. n/t

[longship]

2. Keeping religious wackos from legislating their beliefs into law.

:kick:

[bryant69]

7. Couldn't that particular goal be accomplished by

eliminating religion?

Bryant

[stevelee67]

10. nope

eliminating religion would remove the freedom of religion. it would be (basically) the same as forcing everyone to be of one faith...

[longship]

16. Thank you.

As an atheist, I would no more allow a law outlawing religion than I would establishing one. That's the way it has to be.

Government must stay out of the religion business.

Now, there's another opinion on religion with which I agree. It is controversial. I'm with George Carlin. Tax the churches. All of them!

[More Than A Feeling]

18. Violating the separation of church and state is indeed controversial

With the power to tax comes the power to regulate, and churches would gain the ability to participate to the fullest extent in politics.

[longship]

23. The Tax Churches Argument.

Either the IRS must enforce the political restrictions across the board, or they should tax all the churches and allow them all to participate. Allowing only the Republican-friendly churches to play in the political field is clearly biased.

I don't care which way they go, but either way, the playing field *must* be level.

[bryant69]

30. I would agree with that

Obviously the Bush IRS is enforcing the tax laws un-equally.

Bryant

[More Than A Feeling]

32. Haven't you heard? The spiritual elite are above man's law!

:sarcasm:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. Hmmm

I think some of them are doing pretty well at that right now.

But I guess it wouldn't be good if they could do it openly and legally.

[bryant69]

19. What about "the power to tax, is the power to destroy"

Or the argument that once you give the government the power to tax churches, they can then say "Well I go to first national baptist so we'll set their tax rate here, but those whackos out at the Seventh Day Adventists should pay this tax rate."

Bryant

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. No more than the state could set different rates for different companies

You couldn't set a law saying "Exxon's profits gets taxed at 15%, Texaco at 20%"; and you wouldn't be able to do that with churches either.

[Evoman]

21. Lol...badddd idea. Take their money, but give them power.

Why not just take their land instead?

"Your ruined our agreement....no more land for you" BULLDOZE. And put up a non-religious community center. You break the agreement, you suffer!

[not_a_robot]

38. Of course

Churches should never be exempt from tax, regardless of charitable works, unless they can prove that it is their only function (which be definition it is not).

[beam me up scottie]

51. Another fearless newbie!

Welcome to DU, not_a_robot!

And welcome to The Arena. (IMModerate was dead on when he dubbed it so)

:hi:

[eallen]

24. Ah, but how do you define "religion"?

Is Marxism a religion? It sometimes seems one to me. It has a Holy Scripture, believed as a matter of faith, an eschatology into which all history is fit, a transcendent end in the march of History, a set Purpose for man, in aligning with their class on that march, and even a notion of sin, when "false consciousness" causes the marchers to go astray. Would banning religion also mean banning it?

I already hear the vocal objections of the Marxists hanging out here. :evilgrin:

As others have noted, freedom of religion is really freedom of belief.

[Dr.Phool]

26. I am a Marxist-Lennonist.

I love all the Marx Brothers and John Lennon!

[More Than A Feeling]

27. LOL

I was going to say, "and you ran against Bill Nelson?????"

[bullimiami]

4. the freedom extends to allowing you to not have a religion.

and to keep other peoples religions from controlling your world.

[Wildewolfe]

5. Well....

... freedom of religion means they can't declare you a heretic for not believing in their God and burning you at the stake for apostacy...

Freedom of religion might should be phrased as freedom of Belief. You can believe or not as you choose and have the right to your own beliefs.

[angry_chuck]

9. Well... said.

eleoquently statement, "...right to your own beliefs."

Leave other people alone, even (A)theists

[beam me up scottie]

52. Welcome to Du, angry_chuck!

:hi:

[Iris]

6. It has value because no one should be forced to say they believe

something they don't believe. I would think that probably suits Atheists quite well. Why should they be forced to act like they follow a government-sponsored religion just to survive?

[The Deacon]

8. Well

My ancestors tried it the other way in the Old Country, and after having their property seized for not being High Church & refusing to sign the Act of Succession, they decided it might be a good idea not to let the government have the power to impose religious practice. We also tend to believe that this protects atheists & agnostics from being forced to practice what they view as mumbo-jumbo.

[CardInAustin]

11. Because it means the govt can't tell you what to believe....

Freedom of religion is every bit as valuable for atheists as it is fundamentalist Christians. Basically, you are free to practice and believe as you see fit.

I hope this was a rhetorical question.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Remember there are two clauses to that right.

Establishment clause = state can't establish a religion = VERY good for atheists
Free Exercise clause = people can have whatever religion (or lack thereof they want) = good for atheists because we can be godless heathens and we don't really care about your religion as long as the first clause keeps it in check from being legislated.

[Evoman]

13. Because when one church has too much power, they tend to kill people like me.

Having a society with a bunch of different religions helps us all...some people can go to whatever church they want, and people like me can sleep in. I suppose we could argue that stopping all churches would be better, but its unrealistic....its morally wrong to kill or terrorize other people, just because they believe nonsense. I have no interests (other than intellectual debates) in religion or controlling religious people....as long as they don't affect me to much.

Secular society let us live and let live.

[bryant69]

17. That's one of the main reasons i believe in it as well

Assuming some religion could get on top, there's no reason to believe it would be mine, and if it was mine, there's every reason to beleive it woudl be corrupted by being on top.

I was gonig to ask a question but i see on rereading you already answered it.

Bryant

[Penndems]

20. Freedom of religion means you have the right to worship as you please

It also means that you have the right not to worship, if you so choose.

[sarge43]

22. You're not paying taxes to support the established state religion. n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. This is OT

but I was wondering the other day, is England a theocracy? Since their queen is the head of the Church of England? Since there IS a church of England? I was thinking about this in relation to an earlier post saying England was quite secular today.

[enlightenment]

33. in the strictest sense of the word, yes --

The Queen is the titular head of the Church and "defender of the faith" and the House of Lords has CoE Bishops serving in it.
BUT --
reality is a different kettle of fish. Since the Queen has little real political authority anymore (same for Lords), it isn't really accurate to call England a theocracy. There has to be an element of actual control/power over affairs.

As for their being "a" CoE -- well, yes, and there's also a Church of Scotland . . . kinda muddles that stew, a bit!

edited because I can't spell!

[Zhade]

35. Um, it works both ways - freedom OF and FROM religion.

That's the whole point of the separation of church and state.

The benefit: Religion isn't forced on us, and our lack of religion isn't forced on you.

Secularism - it works!

[beam me up scottie]

36. Why do you think atheists have different reasons to protect constitutional rights?

In case you haven't been paying attention, we're not the ones trying to take them away.

It's funny, the ACLU and atheists have been vilified by christians for decades when we are the ones on the front lines protecting YOUR rights.

And by funny, I mean revolting.

[kiahzero]

39. And theists regularly protect the rights of atheists

Hell, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is run by an ordained minister.

Given the common argument that theists aren't "sane or rational" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=95849&mesg_id=95871 , it's a natural question to wonder why someone would be for a constitutional right to have their "ridiculous beliefs" and live in their "fantasy worlds." There are plenty of good answers; one might be that the government should never have the power to restrict thought or belief. That's just off the top of my head; there are plenty of others. But when presented with rhetoric about how crazy and insane theists are, it's not unreasonable to ask the question.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Protect us from who? Gays? Other atheists? Insurance salesmen?

Oh, that's right, they're protecting us from their fellow THEISTS.

Boy am I glad christianity exists, after being persecuted by the christians for thousands of years, we're supposed to be grateful that some of them finally noticed how unfair that was and took up for us.







Oh and btw, I have EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO QUESTION THE INTENT OF THE OP, since he has a history of baiting atheists that goes back more than a year.

[kiahzero]

43. Yes, theists protecting theists, agnostics and atheists from other theists.

Forgive me for not imputing malice to the OP. There's no need to call me "junior."

[beam me up scottie]

44. edited

And yes, they're protecting us from their fellow theists.

And we vilified them how?

Look up the history of vitriol reserved for the ACLU and people like Michael Newdow on DU.

Then get back to me about how grateful I should be that liberal believers really understand the importance protecting the constitutional separation of church and state.

Or, even better, take a gander at a more recent display of liberal malice: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2663534

[kiahzero]

45. I hadn't seen that post before

That thread's almost as disturbing as the threads attacking gays after the New Jersey decision.

And we vilified them how?

You haven't, but the post I linked is not unique in attacking theists as insane and / or irrational... but we apparently make good enough lawyers (in spite of our collective insanity) to argue against the religious right.

Look up the history of vitriol reserved for the ACLU and people like Michael Newdow on DU.

I haven't seen a whole lot of ire directed towards the ACLU, but I remember people attacking Newdow. I recall defending him in that case here and elsewhere - in fact, I managed to convince most of my Con Law class that Newdow was not only right to sue, but that the court should decide for him, even under Rehnquist's flawed understanding of the Establishment Clause.

I'm trying very hard not to take your posts personally again, but it's hard when you seem to enjoy ridiculing me and just about all of my posts on this forum, to the point of even linking my posts here from other threads on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

46. There is a lot of history on DU.

My attitude towards christian apologetics is a product of hundreds of such threads.

Just like the attitudes of GLBT people who have had to endure the same.

Especially during previous election years when they were blamed for costing Dems elections.

We were ALL told to shut up and forget about our rights, gays, immigrants, atheists- any minority whose cause wasn't popular.

We were told we were being selfish.

Over and over and over again.

How would you like to be treated like that by your fellow liberals?


Now maybe you aren't doing that, and if so, I apologize.

You will find very few intolerant atheists in this forum, but we give as good as we get.

Check out my sig line for a prime example.

[kiahzero]

47. I have been treated that way on a few rare occasions

It sucks to be thrown under the bus. I apologize if any of my posts indicated an attempt to do anything of the kind - clearly communicating my views is not one of my strong suits.

[beam me up scottie]

48. No, it's not your fault.

It's difficult to interpret intent on line and even more so in forums like these.

We love our theist friends in this forum, and they love us, but the relationships seldom started out that way.

We don't agree on everything but we are all on the same side and we try not to forget that.

Some people, believers and non, do come here to disrupt, but the regulars usually call them out before they can get too far.

I apologize for jumping your posts.

You have a right to post your opinion, just like anyone else. And we agree to disagree a lot in here.

[kiahzero]

49. Yay.

:pals:

[beam me up scottie]

50. Backatcha.

:)

You'll get used to the grumpy atheists, we're nothing if not consistent.

And if you're ever bored, check out the threads in the archives, much of the epic battles you see today are just continuations of old ones.

[bryant69]

58. You really are incapable of looking at individuals instead of groups

aren't you? At any rate I think the ACLU generally does good work, and while there are a few high profile cases we would probably come down on different sides of, for the most part I agree with Atheists that we should have a secular government.

Frankly right now you don't have the power to take away constitutional rights - atheists are a small largely powerless minority, compared to Christians. My question is more hypothetical. Atheism is not a religion, and it's not a belief system. Many describe religion in such negative terms I have to believe you think we'd be better off without it.

Bryant

[Random_Australian]

41. Let me re-ask your question:

What is the value of not making people - by law - act and even think as you wish?

Or, to put it another way, what purpose does not telling people how they can think & what they can say serve?

Pretty obvious answer, and nothing to do with atheism.

[bryant69]

64. Should people be allowed to believe that 2+2=5?

I mean that seems to be what many atheism, including Mr. Dawkins, think religion amounts to.

Obviously if across the land a large group of people believed that 2+2=5 it would create problems for our nation - well the belief in God creates similar problems - shouldn't the Government take steps to encourage people to accept that 2+2 really equals 4?

Bryant

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. It's actually more like "freedom of conscience," the right to

believe or not believe, and to act upon that attitude, without fear of legal consequences. You can affiliate with a religious group or not. You can pay money to support a religious group or not. You can celebrate religious holidays or not.

[cosmik debris]

54. None to me

Offering Freedom OF Religion to an atheist is like offering 31 flavors of ice cream to a person who is lactose intolerant. Any choice will result in nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and cramps.

Freedom FROM Religion would be nice, but it is not a generally recognized right so it doesn't come without a fight--and it is usually a losing battle.

It has been said that freedom of the press is reserved for those who own a press. Likewise, freedom of religion is a right limited to those who have religion. Those who have no religion don't get to enjoy any such right.

[bryant69]

59. What would Freedom from Religion mean to you?

I mean how would things change if you had Freedom from religion?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

60. That's too big a question to answer in one post.

So let's start with tax equity.

There is no doubt in my mind that religious organizations get tax advantages that cannot be gotten by atheists. The tax exempt status for churches is a fine example.

It seems equally clear to me that religious organizations have much better access to the Federal Treasury than atheist have. Especially since the Pretzledent promoted the Office of Faith Based Initiatives to almost cabinet level status.

And I can never forget the government's direct spending to promote religion. The last time I worked for the Federal Government, they sponsored religious services on site and paid employees to attend. Suppose you have 200 employees at an average pay of $9 per hour. Now calculate the cost to taxpayers for a 30 minute prayer breakfast twice a month.

Wouldn't it be nice if our tax dollars were collected and distributed equitably without regard to a religious test? I know it would serve me better.

[bryant69]

61. Well

The third one I agree with you on - that is pretty disgusting - but i hate employee meetings anyway.

The second one, I agree that the President is obviously pursuing an agenda. On the other hand an organization designed to feed the hungry or help unemployed, whether organized by a church or not, should be equally eligible, provided they are not prosolytizing. But of course the point to a lot of those organizations is to prosolatyze - if that's what they want to do they should not take government money (well and it shouldn't be offered).

The first one - I don't know if that's strictly true - or De Jure true. I guess I ought to find out more about gaining tax-exempt status - but if you wanted to buy a house, have meetings and collect dues to promote more tolerance and understanding of Atheism, I would think you should be able to get Tax-Exempt status. Atheists don't have churches, but if they wanted to create parallel structures to provide the social benefits of going to church (i.e. companionship, potlucks, so on and so forth), I don't know why such structures wouldn't be tax exempt?

But of course there could be De Facto denial of tax exempt status. Are such atheist organizations as exist currently given Tax Exempt status?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

62. Nice reductio ad absurdum!

I was talking about a full frontal assault on the first amendment and you reduced it to "employee meetings". That certainly implies that you have only a tenuous grasp of the situation.

You also seem to be rebutting an argument that I did not intend to make. Your response seems to say that atheists could have all the benefits that theists enjoy if we would only jump through the same hoops that the Christians use.

My point is that those benefits should not be available to religious organizations at all. If they want to feed the poor, let them do it with their dollars, not mine. The government should not be in the business of supporting religious organizations. Why should they want to, and why should they need to.

Religious organizations should have the duty to stand on their own or fall on their own. Our government is capable of providing the services that the voters want it to provide. We don't need the help of any church and it is clear that the benefit is given to the church by bypassing the government programs already in place or creating new programs without the appropriate governmental oversight.

[bryant69]

63. Well should non-religious soup kitchens be eligible for

government funds? I mean as it stands now the government passes out a certain amount of money to organizations to help them do things perhaps they should be doing themselves. I could see the arguement that the government, rather than supporting and relying on this generosity, should provide such services themselves. In essence they shuold cut out the middle man. If that's your argument than I can see some wisdom in it, but i'm not entirely convniced. On the other hand if your arguement is that a religious soup kitchen should stand or fall on its own, while a the government has the right to support a dserving non-religious soup kitchen - well I would disagree there. Obviously if prosolytizing is involved that's a different story, and I'm using soup kitchen as a stand in for all sorts of programs that the government currently supports.

I also sepereated out two things that perhaps you didn't intend to see seperated - Religious organizations recieve money from the government (which in many cases they probably shouldn't) and they also recieve tax-exempt status. A church (in theory anyway) has to justify getting money from the government somehow, but most churches get tax-exempt status just for existing.

Do you think any organizations should be allowed tax-exempt status? Or on what basis should organizations be allowed tax exempt status?

I'm sorry to inject levity in what is a serious issue. I guess I'm in a good mood; I'm sure it won't last.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

65. The line between church and state

should not be a fuzzy or crooked line. NO tax dollars should EVER go to support a religious organization. NO tax advantage should EVER be extended to a religious organization. When having religion is an advantage, the non-religious are disadvantaged--de facto.

[bryant69]

66. Should having religion be a disadvantage?

You are good at regurgitating rhetoric but not as good at answering questions.

I'll make it simple - imagine two soup kitchens - one run by the catholics one run by the elks. They both do the same work - both operate essentially the same (no prosolytizing). They both go to the office of supplementary funding to soup kitchens. What should happen?

A. Both are denied both should stand or fall on their own.
B. Catholics are denied, Elks are supported.
C. Elks are denied, Catholics are supported.
D. Both are supported.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

67. I can't say it any more simply

NO tax advantage should EVER be extended to a religious organization. When having religion is an advantage, the non-religious are disadvantaged--de facto.

I can understand why you prefer to blur the lines and pretend that money is not fungible, but it is. Giving a benefit to the Catholic Church is a violation of the first amendment. None of your hypothetical questions will get around that.

If the Catholic want to avail themselves of the same status as the Elks, they should set up their soup kitchen on neutral ground and avoid ALL conflicts of interest, not just proselytizing. Is that too much to ask?

[bryant69]

68. You've made it clear - religious organizations should be punished

for being religious. It's a pretty understandable position from your point of view - but you will excuse me if I don't share your position.

Stamp Collecters of America has applied for tax-exempt status - but they must be denied, because when being a stamp collecter is an advantage, then non-stamp collectors are disadvantaged. De Facto.

I note that a few of these atheist organizations - including Atheists United in LA ( http://www.atheistsunited.org/donate/ )are classified non-profits, and so donations to them are tax deductable. In that case is not having a religion an advantage? Does that lead to de-facto disadvantages for Christians?

I would guess not.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

69. Ah, the Falwell approach

For years Falwell has been using the same argument that if Christians are not given every benefit, they are being discriminated against. Equality is never good enough for you dominionists. You just assume that you are being punished because the Constitution says that you are not allowed to feed at the government trough.

Remember, this was not my idea. The first phrase of the first clause of the first amendment to the Constitution says that the government can't support religion. If you don't like our Constitution, you don't have to live under it, but you can't claim its protection while rejecting its limitations.

Martyrdom becomes you, keep digging.

[bryant69]

70. Good approach - you can't answer the argument

So you resort to ad hominem attacks.

If you took even a few moments to research you'd know that I'm not a dominionist, but that I attack them regularly. But what of it - you've achieved your desired result, getting me very very angry. However I will disappoint you by not carrying it further and giving you further ammunition towards your ultimate end.

Have a good day.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

71. You identify yourself with Falwell,

And you present the argument that religion should have the benefits of BOTH secular and religious institutions. You defy the Constitution and you feel sorry for your poor pathetic little self because your point of view catches flak.

Martyrdom becomes you, keep digging.

[bryant69]

72. When did I identify myself with Falwell?

[cosmik debris]

73. You used the Falwell argument

That anything less that having your cake and eating it too is a form of discrimination or punishment. When I pointed out that this is a typical Falwell argument you responded: "Good approach". Apparently you like the Falwell approach of whining about not getting everything you want and then some.

Keep digging.

[bryant69]

74. Laughs

OK i feel better now. But of course what I was referring to was your approach - since you can't answer the argument you are resorting to sd hominem attacks in a desperate attempt to cloud the issue. Hoping to get me angry so you can make this about what an unstable and unbalanced and hypocritcal Christian I am. That is the approach I was referring to - it might well have worked (it has in the past certainly).

But not today. I'm in a good mood.

Course if I wasn't in a good mood, I suspect equating me with Falwell could be seen as a violation of Rule 3.

Keep digging.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

75. You are the one who used the Falwell argument

Not me. If the shoe fits...

Keep digging

[bryant69]

76. A minor victory of sorts

You failed to end a post with "Keep Digging."

This may surprise you but despite being a Christian I pay very little attention to Falwell. If he's made a similar argument I haven't heard it before. But isin't this classic ad hominen response? "The argument must be bullshit because Falwell makes it." I mean it's classic isn't it? Practically a textbook example.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

77. Thanks for the reminder

I fixed it in Edit mode.

So how can a comparison to Mr. Falwell be an ad hominem attack if you don't seem to reject the comparison? If you embrace your similarities to Mr. Falwell, then you should be flattered.

Martyrdom becomes you, keep digging.

[bryant69]

78. Ah I see I haven't made myself clear enough

I thought when I said I was very very angry that you had compared me to the Dominionists and Falwell that was clear enough but clearly your limited mentality failed to pick up on that. So let me be clear. I find it offensive that you equate me with Falwell. I see it as a violition of Rule 3 as well.

I also find it pathetic. It's really sad that you can't come up with anything better than that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cosmik debris]

79. So hit the alert button

Or quit using Falwell's arguments. If the shoe fits...

Martyrdom becomes you, keep digging.

[bryant69]

80. I do get the impression you probably know a lot more about

Falwell than I do. Seems like I could run afoul of this accusation pretty regularly. I mean Falwell believes in God and I believe in God - we're like two peas in a pod, practically.

But like I say, I'm in a good mood, despite your efforts. So why bother the moderators. I'll just file this away for when your plans come to fruition.

Bryant

[Evoman]

81. Catholics are denied, Elks are supported.

The point is merely that a Catholic organizations should not get goverment funding. An organizations made up of Catholic CITIZENS should not have that problem. I fail to see how religious people are discriminated against...I mean, they have the exact same civil liberties and opportunities as regular people.

I mean...theres nothing that says Elks can't be Catholic, is there?

Ideally, the goverment should be responsible for making sure that their citenzry is well kept for, and that everyone has both the same opportunities and responsibilities. They could set up goverment shelters and the like...our taxes could pay for that. Moreover, catholic people could run for office, and get a position within the soup kitchen if they wanted to. If a catholic organization wants to open a soup kitchen, then let their supporters, or other sponsors, provide the money.

But religious people don't see it that way...they see equality as discriminatory. When you have advantages for so long, you forget what its like to be at the same footing with everyone else.

On edit: I don't know anything about the elks. So I'm not really sure if they should or could get goverment funding. Maybe the Elks should get their own funding as well.

[bryant69]

82. I just picked elks out of a hat

any non religious benevolent organization would do.

I have to say I agree with you (I think) that if the government feels like they should provide soup kitchens, rather than funding Elks or Catholics or anybody, they should open the kitchens themselves. In that sense everybody can be on an equal footing, and it cuts out the middle man. If other organizations want to pitch in as well, than they can do it on their own terms and without government funding.

That said if the government is going to persist in funding a middleman appraoch to soup kitchens (or other social needs), than I'm unconvinced that cutting the Catholics out of that money is justified by the first amendment. If they are posolytizing, than that's one thing (and i've been consistent on that). That shouldn't be allowed if they are going to take government money. By the same tokein if the young Republicans wanted to start a soup kitchen and also harranged those they were helping with political slogans and what not, that shouldn't be allowed either.

The first paragraph creates a fine distinction - if they organize a soup kitchen apart from the church, but they organize it more or less at church and put one of their church leaders over it, would that pass the smell test? How far away from the church would Catholic individuals have to walk before becoming eligible for government assistance?

Bryant

[NMMNG]

55. More freedom of religion

means more variety of religion.

More variety of religion greatly reduces the probability of one religion gaining too much power and creating a "State Religion" that everybody is forced to belong to.

Therefore freedom of religion vastly increases the chances for freedom from religion.

[TheBaldyMan]

57. Freedom of belief has value to all, including atheists

I don't think I understand your question, freedom to worship in a way of your choosing is a universal good - are you trying to imply that atheists don't want you to have that freedom ?

Freedom of belief is a fundamental right in America. This includes the belief that God doesn't exist.

That freedom is of benefit to all and is worth preserving and protecting. Are you saying that atheists' beliefs should be exempt from that protection ?