4 ms·
I am aware of the comparison and you're misunderstanding. Fire exits don't prohibit free excercise of religion. The government's authority to say "actual murd
by badrabbit 6y ago
I am aware of the comparison and you're misunderstanding.
Fire exits don't prohibit free excercise of religion.
The government's authority to say "actual murder" as you put it (by the way, is capital punishment murder? Because honor killings are capital punishment under a different law.) is wrong is legitimate only because they honor the rights of the governed, a critical and primary right being the right to assemble, freedom of religion and equal application of the law,especially to a group explicitly protected.
> I am, and I do.
Of course you do, because you perhaps forget many wars were fought over this subject. It's not optional. If you believe that way then do you also believe neo-nazis should be shot on sight for displaying a swastika? But burning a swastika is illegal? Of course not, you allow both because both are protected. But I can tell you, the day they ban burning swastikas would be the day people line up to shoot neo-nazis. I make the hyperbolic comparisons for a reason. The extremes start small. Let us not take peace and freedom for granted.
I am not saying Church services should be allowed. I am saying when you do ease restrictions, do it equally! Bases on building capacity and ventillation among other factors not "Churches". If that's ok then let's do the same by saying "black people can only assemble at 25% capacity because of covid death rate in the black community". There is a reason this basic rights exist. You treat them as suggestions and act surprised when the country is falling apart.
If responsibilities are not optional, rights are not optional.
- perl4ever 6y agoWhat's wrong with Sharia law? As far as I know it's generally accepted in the US and presumably in other civilized countries that parties who agree to decide their disputes in alternative settings such as religious courts are allowed to do so. It's not something done by members of one religion only either. Jewish and Christian sects do it/have done it historically. I'm definitely against anyone being able to give up their rights to escalate to the regular court system, but as far as I know that only exists in secular arbitration which has a specific law addressing that.
- yters 6y agoIf an unmarried daughter has sex, the father can kill her. I think that shouldn't be allowed.
- badrabbit 6y agoThat's your opinion, a right is retained despite majority opinions. Constitutional rights specifically outline legitimate relationship between government and governed where violating that constraint breaks the contract allowing the government to make and enforce laws.
- yters 6y agoMy understanding is people have rights that trump whatever religion they are born into, i.e. the fundamental rights listed in the declaration of independence.
- badrabbit 6y agoIn the US you must opt-in to a religion. Parents can raise you according to their religion,the bill of rights applies to government not parents so they can tell you whato to say do and believe. Basic human rights are protected for most people (except prisoners I guess),but also additional rights for children exist both at the state and federal level. The idea of being born into a religion is not recognized. The declaration of independence is apparently not a legal document you can use in court. If it was,the fundamental rights you mentioned according to that document are self-evident and are given to mankind by God, meaning government cannot implement laws against the self-evident will of God and the self-evident rights of God has given to mankind. It was the foundation of their argument for independence, since after all King George is legitimate only because the people believe he was divinely appointed,deriving authority from God. This idea that democracies exist in acknowledgement of God and derive legitimacy not simply because they represent the people's will but because they protect the people's God-given rights(even for the minority) was well accepted well into the past century. Some even reallized how the atheistic views of communism is incompatible with democracy. Even moving past independence, could Abraham Lincoln have made the argument that slavery must be abolished due to "all people are created equal" if he was a communist ? That argument was relevant because it was once again the government taking away people's God-given rights. If you wonder why your rights are treated so cheaply and all the freedom you have is fading so rapidly is because no one,not the government,not the majority of people or the few that fight for rights acknowledge that the foundation of these fundamental rights is God's authority, that a government and a country while sovreign relative to other countries,there is only absolute sovreign from whom all authority and rights are derived. But going back to what you said, the fundamental rights might as well be fiction to the legal system and SCOTUS,the constitution itself is the document they think is "a living document" they can interpret as they see fit without regard to where absolute rights and liberties originate.
- badrabbit 6y agoI was saying sharia enforced for criminal punishment contrary to secular law as an example.