That in a country where, a vast majority profess to be Christians, in order to hold office (in spite of Article VI of the US Constitution) one dare not announce non-Christian belief, and non-believers are probably the only demographic below Congress in public opinion. (One wonders... Does one wish to be a cockroach rather than an atheist or Congressperson, which polls higher than both -- or is it head lice?)

If only the smarmy Christians on the televisionary set could poll lower than head lice. One could wish.

without a subscription. Were you able to get to it?

If it's going to be a problem to read, I should probably delete it.

At any rate, there are other non-christian groups beside non-believers, and there is no question that all of them face difficulty in the US. However, if I correctly remember what I read, the problems here are minuscule compared to other regions of the world.

I'll take atheists or even Congress over cockroaches and head lice, though Congress would be a tough call.

I apologize for high jacking your thread. I will self-delete if you wish. I hope that you will ask me to let it stand because, IMHO, this is a global issue, and even here in the US where extreme religion is particularly insidious. Furthermore, they all seem to be Republicans.

I love it when you respond and don't disagree with your point in this case.

Of course, these days here in the Religion group I am a bit gun shy.

I try to get along.

I understand about being gun shy. Sometimes guns are best avoided.

My best regards.


Hope you are well.

is that Uganda's Constitutional Court has overturned their horrible anti-LGBT law.

But unfortunately that may not fix the cultural and political milieux which gave rise to that anti-LGBT law, let alone the US churches who promoted it, funded it.

They are a real danger both there and here. I don't give a fuck what people believe; I do very much care how they act. And the actions in Nigeria leading up to this law by some churches here were despicable. Make no mistake. It's what they would want here, too.

That makes me very sad.

They treated Uganda as a Petri dish to culture anti -LGBT legislation. It was the nastiest colonialism in Africa in decades. They have less chance of doing it here every time an appeals court upholds equal marriage. But they'll find other tactics and targets. Currently they're going after the Central American immigrant children. Atilla the Hun would throw up in disgust.

Last edited Fri Aug 1, 2014, 06:52 AM - Edit history (2)

This post seems to clearly "frame" things in a way that favors religion, "religious freedom. "

But consider the dark side of religious freedom here. Religious folks are roving around freely. Taking over other people's countries, and killing thousands of people. In say the current ISIS fundamentalist invasion of Iraq.

Why would anyone want to restrain religion? I just don't understand.

Perhaps ms. cbayer can help me. She supports freedom regarding religious matters, right?

Here's a link to this Wall St. Journal article. It's now yesterday's newspaper, and apparently available: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-global-religion-crisis-1406824905 Or if not? Search the article on Google, and click on it. Usually the papers will give you one reading.

The Wall Street Journal by the way, is owned by Rupert Murdoch; the very same guy who founded and owns Fox News. It should not be surprising to see a right-wing slant here.

Anyone who wants to understand "religious freedom," and possible problems with it, should read the history of US Supreme Court decisions. As it turns out, what happens if a religion demands human adult sacrifice, for example? The courts said we can and should restrain certain kinds of religious freedom.

What would you have us do with them? Put them in Gitmo?
"Religious Freedom" is embedded in your constitution. Were you unaware of that?

Religious freedom does not endorse or favor religion, it endorses freedom of thought, belief and speech. Check out 1A.

The people of Iraq and Syria all tend to be religious. In fact, most share the same religion. Their struggle is for power, and is split along sectarian lines. It is not about believing or not believing in a particular God.

You appear to have very little understanding of either religion or religious freedom, yet you continue to claim all kinds of professional qualifications. Methinks the king is in his all together.

But keep on entertaining us. Laughter is good for the soul!

"Religious freedom does not endorse or favor religion." Wow! No one thinks that but you. Passages on Freedom of Speech join Freedom of Religion in the Constitution. By all accounts - but yours.

Your definition of "religion," as not having worldly influence, or causing conflict, is also idiosyncratic, and indefensible in serious company. As I've explained over and over.The struggle for power is one element in wars; religion is another. One much quoted.

Your view that they are not about religion, is not taken seriously in the media, or in any political science class. The split in Iraq and Syria is largely religious; by everyone's account but your own. The conflict in Iraq is almost universally acknowledge to be in large part, between two competing Muslim groups: Sunni, vs. Shite.

I knew there had to be another one; it takes two people reinforcing each other, to end up in such a state of mind.

Goodby.

No hard feelings. Be well and go in peace. I'm sure we are all on the same side.