Is religious liberty threatened in USA?

[blondie))]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

It is and the powers that be are using this pandemic as an excuse to suppress not only religion, but gun rights and freedom of assembly and free speech.  All in the name of "safety".

None of this is legal of course, and I'm mostly ignoring any and all of these stupid orders.  I won't wear a mask or gloves, and I go where and when I please.  Over Easter we had a nice family gathering of over ten people at the house.  Shocking I know.

None of this has been legislated or voted upon by the people it restricts.

Sadly, all my favorite restaurants are closed except for takeout.

Any public gatherings are going to be cancelled, religious ones included. I would agree with you, we have liberties in the Constitution to meet together, but there are exceptions for health reasons. The coronavirus is a public emergency, luckily we have the Internet to help us with our worship. Heck, we are using the Internet to communicate NOW. Sometimes we are too quick to freak out about things. Quarantining for a few weeks is NOT a big deal if it means we can slow the spread of coronavirus to the point where we don't have to worry anymore. 

The coronavirus symptoms can take up to 14 days to show up. (Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period) and in that time period you can spread it to anyone within 6 feet of you. Ignoring public safety rules to have your own fun is not only selfish but dangerous. 

As for the overall topic: NO, religious liberty is not being threatened. Over 76 percent of Americans are still religious (Source: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/) and it is ridiculous to victimize yourself when you are in the majority. Atheists are still attacked and in eight states cannot hold office. (Source: https://www.inquisitr.com/1357238/atheists-are-still-not-allowed-to-hold-public-office-in-eight-states/) 

I absolutely agree that antitheists have been hateful and horrible towards religious people, but these people are a very small minority. My experience being a Mormon hasn't been difficult. It usually goes like this:

Me: I'm a Mormon.

Person: Oh, okay, cool.

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, blondie)) said:

Over 76 percent of Americans are still religious (Source: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/) and it is ridiculous to victimize yourself when you are in the majority. 

You make a lot of good points (and welcome, by the way!); but I would nit-pick this point.  Numerical superiority in a nominal “democracy” does not automatically translate into political power or even freedom from oppression; as apartheid in South Africa and slavery in some counties of the southern US remind us.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[blondie))]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You make a lot of good points (and welcome, by the way!); but I would not-pick this point.  Numerical superiority in a nominal “democracy” does not automatically translate into political power or even freedom from oppression; as apartheid in South Africa and slavery in some counties of the southern US remind us.

Thanks! 

When I mean "majority" I mean that religion has been saturated into our culture to the point where nonreligious people are ostracized and harshly judged. Just by looking around you, you can see "under god" in the pledge or "faith in god" on our coins. 

I mean, nonreligious parents often lose custody battles because they are seen to have a "lack of ethics" (Source: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf)

I'd argue nonreligious people are more discriminated against than religious people. Atheists in 13 countries today can still be killed just for professing their beliefs. Where have religious people been discriminated against in this way? (Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593)

 

[Just_A_Guy]

19 hours ago, blondie)) said:

[1]Thanks! 

When I mean "majority" I mean that religion has been saturated into our culture to the point where nonreligious people are ostracized and harshly judged. Just by looking around you, you can see "under god" in the pledge or "faith in god" on our coins. 

[2]I mean, nonreligious parents often lose custody battles because they are seen to have a "lack of ethics" (Source: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf)

[3]I'd argue nonreligious people are more discriminated against than religious people. Atheists in 13 countries today can still be killed just for professing their beliefs. Where have religious people been discriminated against in this way? (Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/atheists-discrimination_n_4413593)

 

1.  Sometime ago, LDS blogger Ardis Parshall pointed out that “some people are reviled for His name’s sake; others are reviled because they are simply revolting”.  Her point, of course, is that sometimes we make ourselves obnoxious and then plead “religious persecution” when others call us out for our behavior.

The same principle works in reverse.  For example, Utah gubernatorial candidate Zachary Moses recently answered a slate of questions for the Salt Lake Tribune.  Asked what his religious preference was, Moses replied:

What’s your religious affiliation? I practice the separation of church and state. I am a fervent defender of our freedom of religion, as well as our freedom from religious intrusion into our government. I also would like it noted that The Tribune should rise to a higher standard than asking this question, which is irrelevant to the job of the governor.

Now, Moses here is being evasive, smarmy, hostile, self-righteous, and willfully obtuse.  But of course, he’ll characterize anyone who disagrees with him as “ostracizing” him.

My experience is that behaviors endemic to certain religious or irreligious groups are likely to get members of those groups into trouble far more often than their actual theological tenets do—and whenever we experience pushback, it’s much easier to chalk that up to prejudice than it is to evaluate our own actions.

Nor do I think “In God We Trust” really counts for much, culturally speaking.  Nation-states often enact official credos that either never percolate into everyday life or else lose their potency over time.  The French revolutionaries touted “liberty, equality, and brotherhood”—which didn’t stop them from chopping heads at random.  The Royal Family, in spite of their special role in the Church of England, is chock full of impenitent philanderers (and has been for generations).

2.  I respect Professor Volokh, but I practice juvenile law (and before that, family law) in Utah; and if I tried to equate a parent’s lack of religion with lack of ethics, I’d get laughed out of every courtroom from Logan to St. George.  

Other states, obviously, may vary; and certainly even in Utah it can become stickier if the parents agreed on a faith tradition (or lack thereof) in which to raise the children and then, on divorce, one parent reneges on the prior agreement.  But that’s a stability argument, not a religious argument; and I’d similarly expect to see a Utah court refuse to authorize baptism for a child whose parents had previously been atheists during the marriage.

3.  I would be careful here.  HuffPo is trying to take the abuses of the Islamic bloc to taint post-enlightenment Christianity in a classic game of guilt-by-association.  I’m sure you would object to my pointing out that explicitly (USSR and China) or implicitly (Nazi Germany) atheistic regimes killed millions in the last century; and I’m sure you would argue that current anti-religious regimes in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba don’t represent the more tolerant westernized atheists in this country whose interests you are championing.   

So far as I know, the US government is not trying to tell atheistic groups that they *must* appoint and/or employ Christian leaders who openly seek to undermine the group’s ideologies and institutional goals.  It does not tell atheists that they *must* have their children educated in schools that are by law expressly Christian.  It does not tell atheists that making a secularist expression that happens to offend a Christian coworker is a firing offense.  It does not threaten secular service providers—even media companies—with shutdown orders if they refuse to provide their services in furtherance of ideologues they find personally revolting.  It is not seeing a growing number of candidates and elected officials who believe that otherwise-qualifying tax-exempt nonprofit organizations should be taxed anyways merely because they are irreligious.  

These are, however, challenges being faced by religious groups in the United States.  Certainly these developments don’t constitute a latter-day kristallnacht.  Then again, nether did Hitler’s elevation to the chancellorship.  These things tend to happen by degrees; and once they get going, they can pick up speed very quickly.  Hence, the vigilance by religious groups.  

Edited April 16, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, blondie)) said:

Any public gatherings are going to be cancelled, religious ones included. I would agree with you, we have liberties in the Constitution to meet together, but there are exceptions for health reasons. The coronavirus is a public emergency, luckily we have the Internet to help us with our worship. Heck, we are using the Internet to communicate NOW. Sometimes we are too quick to freak out about things. Quarantining for a few weeks is NOT a big deal if it means we can slow the spread of coronavirus to the point where we don't have to worry anymore.

I must call you out on this. 
Hitler ruled Germany for twelve years under a legal emergency decree by the Reichstag. 
No supposed emergency ever justifies any compromise of our God given rights. No exceptions. 
The decrees so far here in the US  are not even legal IMHO. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by mrmarklin

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, blondie)) said:

Any public gatherings are going to be cancelled, religious ones included. I would agree with you, we have liberties in the Constitution to meet together, but there are exceptions for health reasons. 

 

13 hours ago, blondie)) said:

As for the overall topic: NO, religious liberty is not being threatened.

These 2 statements are directly contradictory and is a perfect illustration that freedoms enumerated in the Constitution that the government is prevented from usurping, especially Religious Liberty is threatened.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that provides for ANY exception to the Constitutional limits of government except by invoking Martial Law.  You can choose to give up whatever liberties you want to give up to hide from covid.  The government HAS NO AUTHORITY to force you to give it up.  The fact that YOU, a religious person, thinks that they do is a primal THREAT to religious liberty.  So, yes, thank you for illustrating exactly the reason why I say it is threatened.

Edited April 16, 2020 by anatess2

[Vort]

Come on, folks. Seriously, @blondie)) is a troll, and not a particularly subtle one. Do you honestly not see that?

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I must call you out on this. 
Hitler ruled Germany for twelve years under a legal emergency decree by the Reichstag. 
No supposed emergency ever justifies any compromise of our God given rights. No exceptions. 
The decrees so far here in the US  are not even legal IMHO. 

Well, you had similar measures during the pandemic of the Spanish Flu...OR...World War 2 also had areas with even greater restrictions than what we are experiencing with this pandemic (and longer edit - we had some strong restrictions in the US).

In some areas, not only were they restricted on where they could go, they were restricted with what food and materials they could buy and even restricted at times on when they could or could not have lights on.

I imagine we would have had a much harder time if the people today had been alive during World War 2.  When they found out they could only buy what they had a stamp for...the people today complaining about their liberty being taken would have taken up arms and caused civil strife in the US, making so we couldn't fight the enemies overseas.

If we cannot pull together for a month or two in following simple orders as we have (where we don't even have to turn off the lights at night of only allowed to buy things off of stamps, much less recycle rubber and other goods meticulously) it would have been a disaster in WWII.  Thank goodness for our parents (the greatest generation) who had a lot more cultural outlooks to see the common good of the nation rather their own selves.

Of course, our (or my) generation started to throw that all away with our selfishness and inward looking to our own desires and wants rather than that of the community around us.  Draft Dodgers, rampant Drugs, and all other things we decided to bring in that showed our self indulgences were more important to us than the preservation of our nation and it's people.  Individuality over that of the good of others.

Edit - That same self indulgence and putting the personal self before others affects BOTH sides though.  This is also another reason I think religious liberty is under attack these days.  Christianity teaches us to put God first and our neighbor second.  There are many who find this idea offensives (Especially the first and great commandment).  They would rather put themselves before any deity and those that do so can sometimes ping their conscience.  They are seeking to quell those that follow the first and second commandments in many ways simply because seeing others do so also causes their own conscience to burn.

Edited April 16, 2020 by JohnsonJones
clarity

[blondie))]

15 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I must call you out on this. 
Hitler ruled Germany for twelve years under a legal emergency decree by the Reichstag. 
No supposed emergency ever justifies any compromise of our God given rights. No exceptions. 
The decrees so far here in the US  are not even legal IMHO. 

Yes, it is legal? It's a time of national emergency, unless you've forgotten?

You're seriously comparing public health and safety to HITLER. . .what? Are you anti-vaxx as well?

[blondie))]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Come on, folks. Seriously, @blondie)) is a troll, and not a particularly subtle one. Do you honestly not see that?

Sorry? I didn't think anything I said was unreasonable

[mordorbund]

7 minutes ago, blondie)) said:

Yes, it is legal? It's a time of national emergency, unless you've forgotten?

You're seriously comparing public health and safety to HITLER. . .what? Are you anti-vaxx as well?

When half the electorate honestly believes the current president is a new Hitler, I think the responsible thing for everyone is to think twice about how much power we give him.

[mordorbund]

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we cannot pull together for a month or two in following simple orders as we have (where we don't even have to turn off the lights at night of only allowed to buy things off of stamps, much less recycle rubber and other goods meticulously) it would have been a disaster in WWII.  Thank goodness for our parents (the greatest generation) who had a lot more cultural outlooks to see the common good of the nation rather their own selves.

I've been reading my grandparents' history and I have to tell you, the government during WWII was not an altruistic assembly with pure motives. They told people to recycle their aluminum to help with the war effort even as stores rolled out brand new ones of aluminum cookware. And that's to say nothing of the growing government programs that weren't rescinded after the war was done, the reign of a president who did not voluntarily step down after 2 terms and who threatened to flood the Supreme Court with as many Justices as necessary to get his way.

[JohnsonJones]

4 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I've been reading my grandparents' history and I have to tell you, the government during WWII was not an altruistic assembly with pure motives. They told people to recycle their aluminum to help with the war effort even as stores rolled out brand new ones of aluminum cookware. And that's to say nothing of the growing government programs that weren't rescinded after the war was done, the reign of a president who did not voluntarily step down after 2 terms and who threatened to flood the Supreme Court with as many Justices as necessary to get his way.

I would say this is all true as well.  Some feel Roosevelt and his administration were some of the most tyrannical the US has ever had (ironically, the majority of the Church members were democrats during that time period).

I wasn't so much commenting on that as the part where people felt they were working together for the betterment of the community during a time of crisis (war against a foreign enemy who attacked US soil) vs. how we see some acting today (different sort of crisis, but one where we are fighting a disease on our soil) where rather than pulling together (as they did in WWII) to try to band together and fight it united, today  we see some who would rebel if they could over being restricted for less than a quarter of a year.

Edited April 16, 2020 by JohnsonJones
clarity

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, blondie)) said:

Sorry? I didn't think anything I said was unreasonable

You didn't. @Vort can be a little cranky sometimes. He just needs a nap and a juice box. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

When half the electorate honestly believes the current president is a new Hitler

I highly doubt half the electorate thinks Trump is Hitler. They may not like him, but I think it's only the radical/delusional left that views him as Hitler. And, in fairness, there were many on the right who viewed Obama the same way. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by MormonGator

[Vort]

1 hour ago, blondie)) said:

Sorry? I didn't think anything I said was unreasonable

[mordorbund]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And, in fairness, there were many on the right who viewed Obama the same way. 

That only serves to reinforce my conclusion.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

That only serves to reinforce my conclusion.

Not really. I highly doubt that 50% of conservatives thought Obama was Hitler. 

[mordorbund]

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Not really. I highly doubt that 50% of conservatives thought Obama was Hitler. 

That wasn't the conclusion.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, blondie)) said:

Yes, it is legal? It's a time of national emergency, unless you've forgotten?

You're seriously comparing public health and safety to HITLER. . .what? Are you anti-vaxx as well?

I realize this wasn’t directed at me, but . . .

Hitler is as Hitler does.

Religious gatherings are being broken up at gunpoint by armed officials.

Now, yes; we believe there are good reasons for this.  And objectively speaking, there probably are.  But mainstream Germans also believed there were good reasons for what happened on their watches.  Democratic masses tend to be quick to declare emergencies, and very bad at discerning when the emergency is in fact over.  Fear does that to people.  

That doesn’t mean we must NEVER let this stuff happen no matter how dire the emergency.  But it does mean that we would be well-served to be vigilantly standing by with a (figurative) bucket of tar and bag of feathers, ready to push back against those who seem to be enjoying their newfound power too much.  

Edited April 16, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Colirio]

18 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

No supposed emergency ever justifies any compromise of our God given rights. No exceptions. 

I really just wanted this to be said again. 

[Guest MormonGator]

30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hitler is as Hitler does.

You don't think it's hyperbolic or insulting to use the Hitler comparison? Given that, you know, his actions lead to a massive World War that killed millions of people-and that ain't happening now. 
 

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You don't think it's hyperbolic or insulting to use the Hitler comparison? Given that, you know, his actions lead to a massive World War that killed millions of people-and that ain't happening now. 
 

*Shrug* If you do some of the same stuff that Hitler did (like having the police break up disfavored worship gatherings, otherwise micromanaging every facet of everyday life, and get increasingly squishy about when those restrictions are ever going to end), then the comparisons are going to happen.

The outrage factor at such comparisons, I think, comes primarily from the belief that our politicians and our culture would never (ever!) do something so horrible—a presumption that Hitler himself, of course, exploited to the hilt.

The great lesson of politics is that power corrupts; and that given the chance, there’s no reason that our guys won’t be just as degenerate as their guys.  You don’t safeguard liberty by counting on the perpetual altruism of the powerful.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

*Shrug* If you do some of the same stuff that Hitler did (like having the police break up disfavored worship gatherings, otherwise micromanaging every facet of everyday life, and get increasingly squishy about when those restrictions are ever going to end), then the comparisons are going to happen.

 

I guess I expected more from conservatives. Liberals, I get it-they are usually more emotional and don't really care that much about history. But when conservatives act like liberals I do get a little disappointed. It's like the first time Daddy forgot to pick you up from soccer practice. 

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's like the first time Daddy forgot to pick you up from soccer practice. 

But when for the last six months Daddy has been casting furtive, scowling looks at you . . . and last week you heard him muttering to Mommy about “get rid of that little maggot” . . .  and the global playing field is full of the abandoned carcasses of other kids whose mommies and daddies DID “forget” to pick them up from soccer practice . . . suddenly the experience takes on a totally new dimension.