Opinion on snake handling in  church? Freedom of religion or breaking state law?
925064
Are those folks still around? Kentucky had a real huge problem with religious snake handlers back in the seventies, and I have slept since then, but the snake handlers took their views to the supreme court I think, but like I said I have slept since then. \n\nFreedom of religion ends when it is life threatening. Jehovah's Witness have had children taken away from them because they would not allow blood transfusion to save the child's life. \n\nIn the seventies in this same state of Kentucky people went to jail for snake handling and the snakes killed people. \n\nJudges have sent people to prison for refusing to take their children to the doctor when the child died because their religion does not believe in doctors, but miraculous healing. \n\nI am all for freedom of religion, but I am also all for the authorities stepping in to save lives when the religion gets out of hand. \n\nIf it does not harm anyone, then I am all for freedom of religion.
715618
I hate it. There needs to be a strict separation between church and state. I'm an agnostic and don't feel the need to abide by rules set forth by one group of people telling another group of people how to live their lives.
931957
A very good question.\n\nI don't see any problem with parents teaching children their religion.  I would be very upset if someone told me I couldn't teach my children Wicca.  This actually happened to two divorcing Wiccans out in Indiana.  A judge decreed it wasn't "mainstream" so they couldn't involve their son in any of their ritual work or teachings even though both parents were Wiccan and neither of them said anything about their religion.  The son was too young to participate anyway, so the parents hadn't been involving him in ritual work, but the judge didn't care.  Fortunately it was overturned, but guess where I'm never moving!\n\nTeaching religion in school is a completely different thing.  Children shouldn't be ostracized or made to feel "wrong" because they don't follow the majority religion.  I know a lot of Christians (sorry, not trying to pick on them, but they do seem to be the squeaky wheels) object to prayer and God not being allowed in schools, but I don't think many Christians would be comfortable with their children taking classes in the significance of stones, crystals, candles and herbs for the use in ritual magick.\n\nSo, I have no problem with people teaching their children what they believe.  It shouldn't be allowed in school, however.\n\nBlessed be!\n)O(
757659
Yes.  Asking children to profess allegiance to a deity they may not believe in is overstepping the bounds of separation of church and state.\n \nNo.  Not on government property.  Privately owned property is completely acceptable.  A private homeowner can litter the front lawn with 1,000 crosses if they'd like.\n\nThey can pray privately to themselves and no one can stop them from doing so, but the state cannot mandate, endorse, promote or even allow any kind of organized or teacher-led prayer.\n\nNot SOLELY on religious belief, no.  As Justice O'Connor once said (to paraphrase) "we are not in the business of legislating based on morality alone."\n\nI'm an atheist, I don't think it would be an issue.\n\nComplete separation.  No organized prayer, no government endorsed prayer of any kind (this of course cannot stop individuals from praying to themselves).
684910
Absolutely not. Morality is a religious issue. \n\nGovernment should legislate based upon practical concerns and objective goals. Murder should be illegal because it causes violence, which disrupts the ability of society to function, and because it interferes with the victim's personal rights. It shouldn't be illegal because "only God can kill". Likewise, communications with a clergyman should be privileged because it serves the social goal of people seeking emotional help (same as a psychologist), and government has an interest in people being rational rather than having emotional breakdowns. Confessions are not legally privileged just because they are sacred in some religions.\n\nMost people don't actually take the time to figure out WHY something may be wrong or bad. Religions and/or politics simply tell them something is bad, and they just accept that conclusion without question.\n\nOnce you look at WHY something is bad, then the answer becomes clear. If it's bad because it interferes with a person's rights to life and liberty, or because it results in property damage, or because it harms the environment thus affecting the health of the community, or because it increases the risk of car accidents -- those are identifiable objective practical goals that are valid for the government to enforce via laws.\n\nIf it's bad because God made it a sin, or because your moral upbringing told you so, or because good people shouldn't do that -- those are not valid reasons to pass mundane laws. Granted, those may be moral reasons why you should choose not to do something. But the government should not not be dictating religious or moral beliefs, let alone attempting to enforce them.
764474
Safety of the children takes precedence.  This is not a question of religious freedom, but a question of child safety.\n\nNOBODY goes to an elementary school, where parents trust that "strangers" will be kept at bay, without an appointment.  All else shall be escorted.\n\nThis guy, though his intentions may be good, should learn and back down.  Want to preach to the teachers?  Make an appointment. Want to preach to the kids?  Become a guest speaker, if the school will allow it.  Else that, stay away.
892764
as an atheist I highly recommend playing with rubber duckies during bathtime. Only God prohibits this, because he doesn't want you to stroke your duckie. We think it's OK though.
620803
Separation of church and state (government) Religion is not banned, I learned about muslims, jewish, greek mythology, ancient egyptian religions. The thing about teaching Christianity is that there are so many fine differences that people currently practice, parents do not want their children to be taught that 'thou shalt not make unto thy self any graven image which is in heaven or on earth to worship" This especially pi$$es of catholics. Thus we have no christianity in schools.
31635
Absolutely. In nearly every country, there are still people who face challenges, whether it's finding a job, or not getting laughed at, or even arrested, because of their religion.\n\nFor example, in France, Muslims are forbidden from wearing headscarves in school. Is this a reasonable safety measure against gangs or a violation of religious freedom?\n\nAnother example, in the US, is the "intelligent design" controversy. Can schools tell kids, whose parents may be fundamentalist Christians, that they evolved from apes? Can they tell everyone that religion is an "alternative", or would this violate the separation of church and state?\n\nQuite a few questions still remain, and I'm sure you can think of many more conflicts based on religion, or lack thereof.
790385
From the outset let me make one thing very unambiguous, I am not aiming my criticisms at any particular religion.  Since what I put in writing applies to all religions, regardless if they are large or small and wherever they exist.  \n\nI make no apologies whatsoever to whomever is offended.  I maybe accused of having malicious intentions, but I believe in what I write and fully respect Freedom of Speech & Expression.   Of course what you will read will not make me very well liked, but I robustly believe that every human being should be told the facts from fiction.  As religions will never confess the truth nor they have any reasons to now or in the future.  Nevertheless I will tell you why religions are weakening everyone and even the supernatural being himself.  Subsequently, in due course, I shall then explain to you the alternative to religion.\n\nEverywhere I go or turn religion seems to dictate the agenda.  In one shape or form attacks on marginal groups are recurrently instigated which constantly seems to staunch from religious perspectives.  This morning I switched on the television and not to my surprise religion has been used obliquely, to rebuff equal homosexual civil liberties.   To me religion in one manner or another is currently, bordering on the end of their tolerance position, regardless what has been preached.  In private there must be an unfathomable repulsion amongst them, but they abstain to air their true views, as this would be seen as politically inaccurate or be accused of being out of touch with civilization.\n\nFirstly how should a person decide, which religion to pursue and be least likely to be consistent with its discrimination?  The quandary is that generally most religions discriminate and proselytize on how to live a moral life.  The next question is then who ought to advocate these principles?  Throughout history most Governments, have been assembled from religious points of view, which in turn passes legislation according to religious perspectives. So the issue is somewhat intertwined, on how beliefs should be implemented by Governments, religions or both.    \n\nIt would be absolutely unacceptable, for any religion to force or intimidate any civilian into believing its theologies or philosophies.   In such instances Governments should promote secularisation and stop harmful religious conduct where necessary. The legislation passed must afford freedom without any hindrance, to any particular individual who feels or is endangered by his or her beliefs by religion.  This legislation must preserve fairness and equality, irrespective of religious viewpoints.  As Governments have major denominations of influence and power, through various means, e.g. newspapers, television, radio etc.  \n\nCountless people since mankind started have been disenchanted, misguided by religion in some shape or form.  Such as opinions on homosexuality, abortions, etc which, are repeatedly expressed to be sinful and an abomination, principally by monotheistic religions.  These ill-intentioned despicable interpretations have caused immense cataclysm in society.  These views have contributed towards homophobic attacks and other atrocities (genocide) committed on minority groups of the human race. \n\nAll due to religion millions of deaths of innocent people have implemented (e.g. the Holocaust) and will consequently do so now and in the future.  In the world we live in majority of the past and present conflicts have been influenced by religious detestation.  Still mankind believes religion is the superlative form of assurance to preach harmony throughout out the world. Of course there are various religions, which do endorse harmonization amongst humanity whatever a person’s race, belief etc.  However nevertheless, who in there right mentality would declare religion is non aggressive?\n\nOn the other hand, there are some people who just acknowledge religion despite the consequences of its views and carry on conveniently,
270166
Well, neither is condemned by society because in order to do so you'd be impeding on people's right to privacy or have it based on biblical scriptures; which the whole misunderstanding of "seperation of church and state" is kinda preventing.\n\nPersonally, I believe higher moral standards should be taught and demanded in regards to sexual modesty. It is ridiculous for me to see and hear about 14, 13, 12 year olds who have already become sexually active.
646264
I think that it is totally outrageous, and an violation of their constitutional rights to deny any serviceman or woman the right to have the accepted icon for their religion displayed on their headstone.\n\nThat having been said, I must also admit that the Government [bless it's black little heart] IS making some progress.  \n\nI have been Wiccan since 1968.  I was enlisted in the Navy between 1972 and 1976.  For those four years I found it necessary to be Buddhist.  \n\nIt was a requirement that I declare a belief system, even if it was Agnostic or Atheist ... however, they would NOT allow me to declare Wicca as my religion.  \n\nThe reason it was mandatory was so that they could put it on my dog-tags.  So that I would get the appropriate religious rites should I be killed in the defense of my country.\n\nI chose to declare Buddhism because it was the only religion on the "approved" list besides Hinduism that was not connected to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god Yahweh/Jehovah and because Buddhism is closer to the tenents of Wicca than is Hinduism.\n\nNow, Wicca is an acceptable religion as far as the U.S. Armed Services is concerned.  There is even a "U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook on Wicca" which informs Army Chaplain's about the basics of Wicca and gives them guidelines on how to handle things should they have to handle a Wiccan death.  \n\nI was much impressed to see that they even had a section where it informed the Chaplain's about the fact that Wiccans sometimes practice their rituals in the nude, and that the ritual knife used [the Athame] was a religious icon, not a weapon.  {The way it was phrased indicated that the M.P.'s were encountering a religious ritual, not a naked nut with a knife}.\n\nIt must logically follow that if a religion is accepted as valid for dog-tags and that the U.S. Army is printing guides for its Chaplain's on how to handle the last rites, etc., then the serviceman or woman must be allowed to display the accepted icon for their religion on their headstone.\n\nSo, things are changing, though slowly.  It is only right and proper that it should change - because you are totally, one hundred percent correct when you noted that the U.S. Government is denying Servicemen and women their Constitutional right to freedom of religion by adhering to the puritanical, christian oriented structure that has been in place for so long.
322078
Is there ANY way in which that is NOT a violation of the first amendment?  That judge managed to destroy BOTH freedom of religion AND freedom of speech in one sentence!  It's perfectly legal to refuse medical treatment for a dying child because it goes against your religious beliefs, but God forbid you make fun of Christianity when your kid's not even there.  Has Bush tried to appoint this guy to the Supreme Court yet?  And why is it that they don't take away people who teach their children to racism and homophobia (or creationism for that matter) but parents who's religion goes against Christianity can lose their kids?  Or maybe it was the sex toy thing.  Perhaps we should take away the kids of everyone who has had sex.  But wait a second, that might not work so well.
811525
Exactly.  If it's not a Religion, then it can not be protected under  Freedom of Religion.  I can't claim my relationship with my husband is protected under that.  Or any of my Relationships. \n\nThey really should be careful about how they represent their religion, because just as easily as the Christian Politicians have twisted the laws to cover only the mainstream religions in many cases, they may soon find it being done to their own to the same extent.
65638
Well it were snakes that were biting people, so the hand that hits, is the hand that heals. The same object to punish, is used to heal. But, the main reason the Israelites were being punished was because of their complaints how the Manna was insubstantial to their needs. Eitherway, it wasn't just some magical copper snake that healed when you looked at it. Rather it was the fact they were looking up to it, and realizing it was G-d sending them the poisonous snakes and not the snakes themselves, so they would repent & return to G-d. And if they didn't repent & just look at it, they would waste away & die.
1150629
This is a hot topic today, considering the secularist attacks on some of our (U.S.) society's traditional practices...\n\nHowever, I believe most courts will allow you to swear in "...under penalty of perjury" as opposed to "...so help you God."
940251
False. \n\nThe Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from telling a religious group to stop holding religious services.\n\nHowever, the Supreme Court has held that if the religious services involve certain behaviors--like animal sacrifice or using prohibited drugs--the government is allowed to ban those practices, as long as the ban applies to everyone and is neutral with respect to religion.\n\nSo, if your religion says that everyone should smoke pot as part of a religious ceremony, the government cannot pass a law banning your religious services, but it CAN pass a law barring people from smoking pot.