NationStates Jolt Archive

For its church-and-state stance, should the US adopt the French model of free ecercise of religion, but no religious expression outside of your church/mosque/temple/etc.? Or would this system simply not work in America?

Think about it, and tell me YOUR opinions.

For its church-and-state stance, should the US adopt the French model of free ecercise of religion, but no religious expression outside of your church/mosque/temple/etc.? Or would this system simply not work in America?

Think about it, and tell me YOUR opinions.
Wouldn't work here. The Constitution guarantees "freedom of worship" and the Supreme Court has always interpreted that to mean any legal exercise of religious belief other than on government property ( and even that is a bit iffy ).

No, that violates the right to freedom of worship. Even if it didn't, I don't think the government should have the right to regulate the religious actions of an individual. If they want to do it, fine by me as long as the government doesn't mandate it or allow it in public places.

Wouldn't work here. The Constitution guarantees "freedom of worship" and the Supreme Court has always interpreted that to mean any legal exercise of religious belief other than on government property ( and even that is a bit iffy ).

I know. I'm just being hypothetical. I'm asking if you think the US would be better or worse or the same off with Laicite, not whther it is possible or not...

No. And I think the French are going the wrong way about it, too. That's not laicity, that's denying humans the right to free expression. I know people are very fond of making trouble over meaningless symbols, but as long as they just display their symbols in peace, they should be allowed to do so.

If they don't, then you arrest them for breaking the peace, not for flashing their symbols.

I know. I'm just being hypothetical. I'm asking if you think the US would be better or worse or the same off with Laicite, not whther it is possible or not...

Worse off. It will stifle leigitmate religious expression while still allowing extremists in the US's religions to preach hatred and spread radical ideas; at the same time this will negatively color the nation's views of religion because the only examples they will see will be extremists breaking the law.

we are too religious to be content to express it only in church. it just wouldnt work.

Generally a bad idea. We should be increasing rights to personal expression, not taking them away.

Well I understand and accept, support the French decision to completely separate civic life from religious life, I wouldn't advocate it here. Whereas people in Europe are generally less religous, Americans are generally more religious, and thus value the ability to prostheletize and worship publically far more.

Plus the American religous experience has not been the same as Europe's. Europe has suffered through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Thirty Years War, Northern Ireland Crisis, etc, and the full experience of tying Church and state together. America is closing in on some of that, but never went that far.

It would be my educated guess that this strict law exists because of less religiousity and the scars of religion in the past. I personally like the strict separation, but it would never work here. It would honestly just feed the Republican senators who always complain about a war on Christianity, and incense a lot of religous people, probably leading to violent confrontation.

For its church-and-state stance, should the US adopt the French model of free ecercise of religion, but no religious expression outside of your church/mosque/temple/etc.? Or would this system simply not work in America?

Think about it, and tell me YOUR opinions.

The french idea of free exercise of religion would be seen here as a denial of freedom of religion and would move us to the brink of civil war instantly. Americans would not stand for it.

It would be my educated guess that this strict law exists because of less religiousity and the scars of religion in the past. I personally like the strict separation, but it would never work here. It would honestly just feed the Republican senators who always complain about a war on Christianity, and incense a lot of religous people, probably leading to violent confrontation.

It wouldn't be just Christianity, but all religion. It is the same as restricting free speech to only what you agree with, or preventing people from protesting the 10 Commandments. Religion deserves the same protection any other kind of free expression warrants, and anything else is discriminatory to it and its followers.

Well I understand and accept, support the French decision to completely separate civic life from religious life, I wouldn't advocate it here. Whereas people in Europe are generally less religous, Americans are generally more religious, and thus value the ability to prostheletize and worship publically far more.

Plus the American religous experience has not been the same as Europe's. Europe has suffered through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Thirty Years War, Northern Ireland Crisis, etc, and the full experience of tying Church and state together. America is closing in on some of that, but never went that far.

It would be my educated guess that this strict law exists because of less religiousity and the scars of religion in the past. I personally like the strict separation, but it would never work here. It would honestly just feed the Republican senators who always complain about a war on Christianity, and incense a lot of religous people, probably leading to violent confrontation.
Wow! Talk about "overstating the case!" Just how do you come to the rather startling conclusion that the US is "closing in" on the centuries of sectarian strife Europe went through?

It wouldn't be just Christianity, but all religion. It is the same as restricting free speech to only what you agree with, or preventing people from protesting the 10 Commandments. Religion deserves the same protection any other kind of free expression warrants, and anything else is discriminatory to it and its followers.

That is what a lot of europeans do not understand about america. You can't limit anyones free speech or free religion here. If Liberal Linda wants to protest the Sisters of holy agony on sunday and in public, that is her right.

Wow! Talk about "overstating the case!" Just how do you come to the rather startling conclusion that the US is "closing in" on the centuries of sectarian strife Europe went through?

Either reading from the moonbat talking point times, or young, very young.

I think its a good policy in general, but america would never allow it.

besides what would be the point of turning 100 million or so law abiding citizens into defacto criminals with the stroke of a pen?

No it wouldn’t work, and I disapprove of the French for adopting it. There is a difference between freedom “of” religion and freedom “from” religion. We have the former in the US.

I think its a good policy in general, but america would never allow it.

We shouldn't, because it gives government the power to determine what kind of free expression is appropriate, and effectively gives government power over religion; this could be considered a violattion of the separation of church and state which is effectively and deservedly sacrosanct in America.