Pompeo's notion that freedom of religion is more important than our other rights is pious fiction

[trotsky]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-enter-the-fray-is-freedom-of-religion-really-america-s-1527796568-htmlstory.html

In introducing the State Department’s latest report on international religious freedom, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this week waxed lyrical about the importance of religious liberty in America’s constitutional system.

“Religious freedom is in the American bloodstream,” Pompeo said. “It’s what brought the pilgrims here from England. Our founders understood it as our first freedom. That is why they articulated it so clearly in the 1st Amendment.”

...First (as it were), in 1789 Congress actually proposed 12 amendments to the states in the original Bill of Rights. What is now the 1st Amendment was originally the 3rd Amendment. It moved up to first place because the states failed to ratify the original 1st and 2nd Amendments. So the idea that the framers “put it first” is wrong.

...Freedom of religion may be the “first freedom” in Pompeo’s mind, and freedom of the press may occupy that exalted status for journalists. But in neither case does that it matter that they are guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. “First” doesn’t mean “most important.”

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. What religion

is suppressed? I didn't catch that? There's churches on every corner....take time and visit everyone Pompeo. So tired of religious victims. It's only a way to control people and get them to act in a standardized way...so the creeps at the top, can act like Satan.

[The Genealogist]

9. Suppressed in the sense that Evangelicals aren't allowed to set up a theocracy

If their precious beliefs aren't forced on everyone as law, with them as rulers, they are "persecuted."

edited for grammar

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

10. Amen

And now pay no taxes and can endorse candidates from the pulpit.

[exboyfil]

2. The Pilgrims valued freedom of religion

so much they exiled and killed others who did not confess the same belief system as theirs.

[shraby]

4. In the pilgrim's time, you have to remember who was in charge of the colonies. The King.

What they did was put distance between the lack of freedom and forced religion, but until they broke permanently from the King, they didn't have real freedom of anything.

[exboyfil]

7. Actually the King was telling them to leave the Quakers alone

Here is a passage from Wikipedia.

King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism. In 1684 England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686, and in 1689 passed a broad Toleration act."

Also

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/10/this-day-in-history-october-27th-puritans-vs-quakers-the-boston-martyrs/

[Voltaire2]

12. Yes well before Charles II there was actually no king for a time.

Charles II and the restoration of the monarchy marked the end of the fairly hideous sectarian civil war period. His father Charles I was part of the motivation for the puritan migration to the americas.

During the Commonwealth Cromwell likely had no problem at all with murdering Quakers.

[Pope George Ringo II]

13. Don't forget Holland.

That detour tells us a lot about the puritan myth.

[YessirAtsaFact]

3. It's all horseshit to keep evangelical "Christians" happy and loyal

A blatant political move, as usual.

So hypocrites like Franklin Graham support and defend Trump despite his hateful ways and his serial adultery.

[lancelyons]

5. Pilgrims did come here because they wanted to do their own religion

This much is true from history books. However many others came because they did not want to do the religion being forced on them.

Freedom of religion should be more like freedom to choose and practice any religion or no religion and the government should not get invoved in advocating for religion or against it.

One thing I have to say about democrats. We dont want to be anti religion for sure. This would put us on the wrong side of the equation. Many Democrats are religious as well but tolerant of those that dont want to practice a particular religion or any at all.

[trotsky]

6. Can you give any examples of the Democratic Party being "anti religion"? n/t

[lancelyons]

14. I didnt say we where anti religion. I said we dont want to be anti religion.

Right now the religious groups identify with Conservatives for whatever reason. They make a point of standing up for religion.

They also paint democrats as not doing that and not standing up for religion.

We just DO NOT want o be the party against religion and if the GOP paints us into that corner, we have to change that narrative.

[trotsky]

15. So in order to counter a lie by the Republicans, you are suggesting we do what, exactly?

Stop fighting for church-state separation?

Allow business owners to discriminate against customers who are gay?

Stop fighting for reproductive rights?

What?

I am very confused about A) what you think the problem is, and B) what Democrats are supposed to do about it.

[lancelyons]

16. I suggest we counter their LIE and with a narrative that we are for people that are religious

Last edited Sat Jun 9, 2018, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

I suggest we counter their LIE and with a narrative that we are for people that are religious just like we are for people who arent.

But at the moment, we democrats have been painted as a group that does not care about religion.

If you are religious and you care about religious liberties... you dont side with democrats. This needs to change some.

Just like we cant continue to push identity politics as our primary focus.

When people are struggling to make ends meet. When people dont have great jobs... We cant be Solely FOCUSED on what bathroom you can use or reproductive rights. Sure it can be something we care about but it cant be our sole focus and the only thing we are talking about.

Let me turn this around and ask you a question on this.

What have democrats done recently to show that they are also for people that care about their religion?

[trotsky]

17. Wow.

"What have democrats done recently to show that they are also for people that care about their religion?"

Primarily they OPPOSE all the fucked up things I listed - i.e., they generally support the separation of church and state, which people who "care about their religion" generally support too, right? Because they realize that's where true religious freedom comes from?

ISN'T THAT ENOUGH?

What do YOU think they should do? Say "God bless America" at the end of MORE speeches? (Pretty sure most all of them do already.)

How do you think religious people should be pandered to? Please be specific.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. All of the Bill of Rights have the same value although a couple have been

restricted.

[Voltaire2]

11. All of them have been restricted.

Except guns, which has gotten derestricted and enhanced.