Freedom Ride

Atheist city Counselor being called for removal because of NC State Constitution

Article 6
Sec. 8. Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

This is clearly unconstitutional and violation of freedom of religion

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_godless_politician.html

Freedom and religion do not mix. One will destroy the other.

Sadly, in America, religion is winning.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—

…but what does it matter what the state constitutions say on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.? Doesn’t the U.S. Constituion supercede the state constitutions anyway?

The states can offer more protection than the US constitution…it cannot offer less. So as long as the state in question does not attempt to weaken your rights they will hold stronger than US but if a state were to attempt to remove a right that the US constitution protects, the US constitution rules

All I really want here is your opinions, there is no wrong or right answer, only ones with little or no thought:

Here are a few questions for you to ponder:

1. if a Muslim exchange student wishes to pray to Mecca should he be allowed in a public school?

2. if a Protestant child wants to pray to Jesus Christ should he be forbidden?

3. is it fair to discipline a school child who aligns himself with Anton LaVey’s concept of Satanism and freely speaks of it on school grounds?

4. should teachers refrain from uttering words like Buddhism in their teachings of ancient Asia?

think about those for a second first individually then collectively
then answer before you read the next and final paragraph…

ok if you answered no, yes, yes, yes then you probably are 100% for segregation of church and state; if you answered yes, no, no, no then you probably are 100% against it. now if you answered differently from these 2 combinations you obviously have bias! just think!

Why should it matter if a student is muslim or christian? You don’t seem to understand that the first amendment means freedom of religion, not freedom to practice only christian religion.

As the supreme court has determined NUMEROUS times, any student can be allowed to initiate their own prayers at school. This does not violate the concept of the establishment clause of the First Amendment (that the state shall not establish a religion). The problem arises when the school or state initiates the religious activity.

As a result,

1. Yes the student should be allowed to do his/her prayer, it is his/her right to practice his/her religion

2. No, this child should not be forbidden from praying to Jesus

3. A child should not be disciplined for speaking about Anton Lavey any more than a Child speaking about any other religion. There would only be a problem if someone is trying to incite violence.

4. No teachers should not refrain from mentioning Buddhism in a class on ancient asia. The fact is that isn’t establishing religion, it is discussing the religion in the context of the history of the area. Just like you can’t discuss the middle ages without understanding the impact that christianity had. Otherwise students aren’t being taught the correct history of the world.

Also, it is not SEGREGATION of church and state, it is SEPARATION of church and state. The purpose is to not have the government establishing a religion and trying to make its citizens practice that one religion. A student initiating a prayer at school, regardless of religion has nothing to do with what the state wants and the Supereme Court has stated this time and time again. As a result, your final paragraph shows your lack of understanding of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause as you seem to misunderstand what separation of church and state is. It is unconstitutional for a TEACHER to initiate prayer. It is perfectly alright for a student to do so.

The city I live in recently banned any new billboards from being built so now a billboard company (Lamar) is suing the city and they say it’s going against freedom of speech. Is banning billboards going against the first amendment?

No, because they only took down the billboards because it was causing driving accidents because peoples eyes were not on the road while looking at the boards.

please help!

"Freedom is obedience to necessity" – meaning that beings are free when they act in acordance with the dialectical forces which brought them into being. There is no sense in asserting your freedom to be a rational consuming individualist prior to modern capitalism and state security; this would just lead to misery and enslavement.

The state has different roles according to which epoch Hegel is discussing. He considered that the 19th Century liberal bourgeois state was the apotheosis of freedom, and the culmination of history. This is, famously, where his erstwhile disciple Marx took issue with him.

Freedoms are listed in the Bill of Rights. Equality is covered in the 14th Amendment.

There is one in particular by Lenina that is something like we have the Freedom to be happy or something…

Please include page numbers!

I have not read Brave New World but here are a number of sites that should help you with it.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/
http://www.gradesaver.com/brave-new-world/
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Brave-New-World.id-45.html
http://www.online-literature.com/aldous_huxley/brave_new_world/
http://www.huxley.net/studyaid/bnwbarron.html

For example whilst the UK and Sweden both have an official religion people are free to pratice how they like, and minority religous rights are protected..

However in France and Turkey whilst there is no state religion .and all religious symbals are banned from many public area.s..

Does that necessarily meant they are more free?
In England a women has the right protected by law to wear a hijab yet in French girls are not allowed to wear hijabs to school (or any any other religous symbals… In Turkey women in hijab can not go to university or work in a government building…

Is removal of religious symbals really a sign of fredom? Are you offended by a Jewish skull cap (In France they can not wear that to school)?

Or does a truely democratic country mean freedom to practice a religion aswell?

In my view, a truly "free" nation is one that allow its citizens to decide for themselves how to live "the good life." By this criterion, no society is perfectly free because every society (out of necessity, perhaps – to preserve the social order) has laws and limitations on human behavior. We can consider a nation to be substantially free, however, if it permits varying conceptions of the good life to "compete" with one another in the marketplace of ideas without interference by the state.

Erik (above) misses the point of your question. By banning religious symbols in schools or government buildings, nations like France and Turkey are being less than free because they are not permitting these conceptions of the good life to compete fairly and freely with one another. If a Muslim girl wishes to wear the hijab to school, why on earth should the French government forbid it? Ostensibly, the answer is found in the motto of the Revolution – liberty, equality, brotherhood – but when it comes down to it, the French are putting their revolutionary vision of an egalitarian society ABOVE the desire of Muslims to set aside their women from those who do not dress modestly and who put their beauty on display for others.

Whether a state has an official religion or not has no bearing upon whether it is a substantially free state.

One final note: perhaps I am betraying my bias as an American, but I believe that religious freedom is one thing that we have done quite well. By constitutional fiat, the U.S. has no state-sponsored religion, and I believe that my nation does an outstanding job of allowing its citizens to choose their own conception of the good life. I do believe, however, that that freedom is under attack in some ways by some forces in our government.

I understand the separation of church and state and its’ importance. However, if college students are getting reprimanded for having prayer groups in university dorm rooms, children are prohibited from talking about God (or whatever they believe in) at school, or people are prohibited to display signs of their religion on lockers or desks at work, haven’t we trampled on their freedom of religion as well? Where’s the line?

Good question with many possible answers!!

But I tend to view religious expression along the same lines as cigarette smoking. It seems that you can do what you like, but if it’s offensive to someone else, the non-smoker has priority.

This is a very crude model, but maybe you see what i mean.