I fail to understand why respect for religion is even worthy of a debate. I think that a Danish paper that publishes blasphemous comments about Muslims ought to be put out of business. We don't accept this kind of behavior regarding sexism or racism, so why are the liberals trampling all over other people's religious rights?
There is a difference between the role of government respecting religion and prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The aclu has been so effective in removing all references to God without that it has jeopordized the free exercise of religion by making so many negative comments against religious groups like the Christian coalition or Muslim fundamentalists.
Amendment I
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.
Obviously, we can not call on the government to respect the establishment of religion, but are we going to let the aclu continue to remove any discussion or education of literature, art, and other subjects that relate to the influences of religion? It sounds like we appointed the aclu as our scape goat for the mind police. Soon, we may not be able to even discuss history related to subjects like the Holocaust because it would discuss the Jewish religion. Are we really going to start eliminating history from our texts to prove a silly point that Jews, Christians, Hindus and Muslims can't identify any interfaith respect.
Perhaps we need an amendment about interfaith respect to protect the religious balance in the US constitution. We cannot let religious fundamentalists fill our egos with violent images of revenge and eternal damnation for people that do not share their faith and logic. At the same time, we cannot accept a violent culture of intimidation to deny the free exercise of religion from aclu secularists that don't trust the fundamentalists. Obviously, both sides need some level of federal protection from the cruelty of intolerance to the suppression of free exercise.
Going back to the table of amendments, Congress has appointed special rights to protect blacks through the abolition of slavery in the 13th amendment, defined rights not to be denied on the basis of race in the 15th amendment, and promoted women's right to vote in the 19th amendment. The constitution even protected the right of people to get liquored through the repeal of prohibition in the 21st amendment.
Maybe it's time for Congress to federally protect people from religious intolerance by introducing an amendment supports interfaith respect. If it were a federal crime to puclicly reproduce religious insults, there would be legal recourse against people to inflame religious hysteria against religious groups in our society. In this respect, the promotion of interfaith respect protects the people that are intimidated and threatened from their religious worship.
On the flip side, we need to put an end to the finger pointing in religion through threats of conversion, eternal damnation, and compulsory obedience. We need to make sure that organized religion does not disrespect the values of non religious people by subjecting them to humiliating images of a trascendental God that will punish them if they do not comply with the establishment of religion. I would be forever happy if the evangelists were prevented from threatening the pursuit of happiness for people that wish to remain outside of religion.
I think that basically ends the rant for me about religious tolerance vs religious persecution. We can't ignore both problems to hope they negate each other. I think that religion demands federal protection just like sex and race. |
