Rights of Religion?

[b&wpac4]

Yep. Seeking to stop people from mutilating children is fruitless and pointless *rolls eyes*. If only more people could've had your attitude, fundies could've continued to enjoy the joys of white only establishments, and keeping those pesky gays from marriage.

LOL if you think I'm a fundamentalist, you are in for quite a shock when you meet real ones. I just see it as a pointless fight that will only cause turmoil, and basically, in the US at least, targets one specific religious group that has no interest in forcing those practices on other people.

Again, seems like there's plenty of better fights out there, right?

 

[yasic]

LOL if you think I'm a fundamentalist, you are in for quite a shock when you meet real ones. I just see it as a pointless fight that will only cause turmoil, and basically, in the US at least, targets one specific religious group that has no interest in forcing those practices on other people.

Again, seems like there's plenty of better fights out there, right?

Millions of children are literally being taken to undergo a dangerous operation that increases risks of serious injury by 0.19% [1], and permanently mutilates an organ. The potential benefits of the operation are very minuscule and are far outweighed by the risks of the surgery itself (refs available upon request). I would think that such an ongoing event would indeed be something well worth fighting for.

I would view the mutilation aspect similar to giving a child a tattoo chosen solely by the parent on their arm that they can never remove. Is it really fair to have the parent give a child a lasting unnecessary physical marker before the child can express any form of consent?



Refs:
1- Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision.Pediatrics 2000; 105: 246-9. [Link]

 

[Washington]

As for Religious Use of Marijuana; the following link concludes with

Following the Oregon v. Smith decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which President Clinton signed into law in 1993. The new law was supposed to strenthen religious freedom, but the U.S. Supreme Court declared it invalid in 1997 in City Of Boerne v. Flores, ruling that the RFRA was unconstitutionally broad. Since then, several states have passed different versions of the RFRA, but religious use is generally not accepted in the United States as a defense in criminal cases involving marijuana.

source
​

 

[MoonLancer]

then one needs to publically expose that diety for what it is --------------- false. However, one can only do that where open discussions are open for all.

Its ironic that you say this here of all places. I would love to have nothing more then an uncensored discussion with Christians were i can expose said deity for what it is...

 

[MoonLancer]

The First Amendment was comtemplated and put into action because the framers knew from a sourcing of history, that silencing religion is the first step to a society that ends being dog eat dog.

Actually they knew that theocracies ruin freedom. That religion is personal to the individual and that the government cannot endorse one religion over the other, or it soon will become a theocracy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

freedom from religion in my case.

The founding fathers were wise well beyond their years.

 

[LittleNipper]

Its ironic that you say this here of all places. I would love to have nothing more then an uncensored discussion with Christians were i can expose said deity for what it is...

Well, that seems out of the question, in our public schools at least ---- the atheists don't wish to appear stupid...

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually they knew that theocracies ruin freedom. That religion is personal to the individual and that the government cannot endorse one religion over the other, or it soon will become a theocracy.


freedom from religion in my case.

The founding fathers were wise well beyond their years.

Theocracies may ruin freedom, because the politicians don't even want to listen to those who voted for them ----- let alone GOD.

The Founding Fathers would likely be the first to admit that Christians make for better leaders, because they know how to be followers.

 

[b&wpac4]

The Founding Fathers would likely be the first to admit that Christians make for better leaders, because they know how to be followers.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Theocracies may ruin freedom, because the politicians don't even want to listen to those who voted for them ----- let alone GOD.

The Founding Fathers would likely be the first to admit that Christians make for better leaders, because they know how to be followers.

Mwahaha, that claim stands in stark contrast to pretty much everything history has to offer on the topic: whenever extremely religious persons like yourself were running the show, things started to go VERY wrong. Whether it was Calvin's Geneva, Anabaptist Münster, Puritan Salem, or just about any other place that was governed by radical Christians.
And you know why that is?
Because extremism of any couleur, whether it's secular or religious, overrides both common sense and humane impulses in favour of a doctrine.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well, that seems out of the question, in our public schools at least ---- the atheists don't wish to appear stupid...

LOL i was talking about this forum. If you want, we can have discussions outside this forum without its limitations. Then you will know what i am talking about.

 

[MoonLancer]

Theocracies may ruin freedom, because the politicians don't even want to listen to those who voted for them ----- let alone GOD.

The Founding Fathers would likely be the first to admit that Christians make for better leaders, because they know how to be followers.

so why the separation of church and state then?

 

[Mystman]

Going way back to the OP: No, it's totally wrong when action X is illegal for the general population, but legal when someone says "but it's my religion!1!!"

Another example would be the recent thread about the boy with perfectly treatable cancer who didn't want to get treatment, and the mother claimed it was their religion.

One poster there claimed that it was ok to let the child die if it was really the religion of the parents, but not in this case because they were some weird mix of tribal beliefs and catholicism, and catholicism alone would object to letting the child die.

Stuff that is illegal is often illegal for a good reason. "some entity who's existence I cannot prove in any objective way says that I should do the illegal thing!" is not a good rebuttal.

 

[Verv]

Well, drugs should not be illegal in the first place unless they cause a person to neglect their children or become a danger to those around them.

In some sense, of course, I agree with the legalization of marijuana for the United States though I still opposie it from where I live.

Understanding Western laws and the priorities they have set over the last hundred years is interesting - the maximization of freedom is a decent value in some ways.

 

[Penumbra]

Are church revenue's taxed the same as other businesses or no? Are they taxed like a non-profit organization? (Are non-profit organizations taxed differently than for-profit organizations?)

It's probably different in different countries. What about US, Britain, Germany, and so forth?

-Lyn

 

[MoonLancer]

here in America theirs lots of evangelizing because one can claim to be a religious institution and thus be tax exempt but reap millions. its kind of sick

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Churches are classified as non-profit in the US, and as such are taxed as other non-profits. Which is a different case than for businesses and such.

Non-profits in the US are able to file for tax exempt status, this is done through the IRS. Most churches and religious organizations are tax exempt here.

Don't know about other countries' tax laws.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

here in America theirs lots of evangelizing because one can claim to be a religious institution and thus be tax exempt but reap millions. its kind of sick

That is a BIG problem. And happens more than it should.

 

[Penumbra]

Churches are classified as non-profit in the US, and as such are taxed as other non-profits. Which is a different case than for businesses and such.

Non-profits in the US are able to file for tax exempt status, this is done through the IRS. Most churches and religious organizations are tax exempt here.

Don't know about other countries' tax laws.

Are there any basic rules that a non-profit company must follow to be considered non-profit? Both for-profit and non-profit companies have employees that get salaries, so individual workers are still making profit.

Are there salary caps or anything like that? Are televangelists and mega churches that get rich considered non-profits, or no?

-Lyn

 

[Fenny the Fox]

As for the actual OP. [Please forgive the multiplicative nature of my posting today. I'm a bit on the scatter-brained side...even more than usual]

IM sure many of you have heard of the rights of religions to have rights outside of others.

For instance its common for many religions to have the right to use certain illegal drugs.

Is this right?

If something is illegal why does a religion get to ignore the law?

If say it is deemed not harmful so the religion can use it then why is the drug or whatever illegal in the first place?
Pardon the ramble of this posts but please post your opinions and thoughts.

Why is it ok for religions to get special treatment?

The only example of this that I can think of, off the top of my head at any rate, is that certain religious institutions are allowed to serve alcohol to minors if part of ceremony. (Catholic churches are allowed, not sure about others really.)
I think the rationale behind this allowance is that the amount is so small per person it is generally negligible as far as medical effects go.

But I honestly don't think they should be allowed to. I think religious organizations should be required to follow the same guidelines as the general public as far as this goes.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I can see the thread getting derailed here, but it's a good point. And why the sexual disparity: OK for baby boys, but absolutely not OK for girls?

Religion aside--could part of the reason be aesthetic? To the Western eye, is the "mutilated" male actually more pleasing than the natural?

Male circumcision and female circumcision are the same in name, but not much else. They both are cutting something off, but the difference is like cutting off the webbing between digits that some children have, and cutting the finger off. Of course, I am not 100% certain as to what gets cut off on female circumcision, and doubt someone can fully describe it to me on this site and still stay in the PG range.