What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?

Willowtree had this to say to me in a now-closed topic: in addition to some general comments about what he presumes is my religious hatred. I'll get to those later, if he wants.Right now I'd just like to state that I very much agree that rights erosion to anyone affects us all, ultimately.What WT won't clarify to me and Dan Carroll is exactly what rights he feels are threatened, specifically by gay rights groups, which he seems to associate with the phenomenon.As far as I can tell, religious excercise is freer than it's ever been - what isn't free is the "right" of one religion to monopolize the public stage or circumvent the law.What erosion of rights do you percieve, WT?

I can't imagine what you're talking about. Your name is in the thread to get your attention and because the thread originated based on statements you made.I can't change the thread title. An admin can but I find it disingenuous to the extreme that you think the thread title is an honest reason for you to refuse to clarify statements you have made.If you believe that explaining your views might subject you to blackmail, that might be a good indicator that your views are wrong. Other than that I can't imagine what "threat of blackmail" you think your name in the title represents. I've participated in a number of threads with my name in the title and experienced no such threat whatsoever.

Bested? For that to have occured you would have actually had to present an argument, not just an assertion.I didn't start this thread to accuse you of cowardice (which I have not at any point done), but rather, to continue a discussion from a thread that was closed before you had had a chance to present the evidence to support your argument. Because I was curious, I gave you that chance. I have no idea what your position is, other than you believe religious rights are being eroded.I disagree; so I thought I'd give you a chance to give examples, etc.Is there any reason you persist in ad hominem attacks rather than support your position? I mean, I can think of a few reasons, but I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt.

Goddamit!It's not a fucking sucker punch! You made some statements, I didn't understand them but I thought they were interesting, and the thread was closed.It's not a trap, WT. I honestly what to know your views on religious rights erosion, particularly after you inferred that I was an idiot for not immediately agreeing with you.Answer the damn question, already. What religious rights do you see being eroded? If the answer is "none", you know what? I'll drop it. I'm not here to make fun of your views. I just want to know what they are. If you outlined the religious rights you see being eroded somewhere already we all missed it. All you have to do is give us the link.But, no. You refuse to take part in debate and instead, would rather throw a hissy fit about your name being in a title. The point here was never to make you look like you're dishonest or something.You did that yourself by responding with inappropriate paranoia. The point here was to get you to clarify some statements, which you refuse to do. I too view Sylas as supremely objective and intelligent and would be happy to abide by whatever thoughts he had. I think the record shows that WT has reacted to a simple request for the clarification of his views with an entirely inappropriate and paranoid accusation of persecution.

"Please" doesn't turn shit into roses. You accused me of perfidy and attempting to blackmail you."Please" doesn't make that better. You acted like a baby instead of answering a question. That's not something that "please" makes go away.

Just so you know, I did indeed take it as such. {Note form Adminnemooseus - I just noticed that I misspelled "response" in the message quoted in message 29. My natural instinct is to spell it "responce". Sometimes I catch it and correct it - sometimes I don't. I also had to do a second edit, to put the "c" in "instinct". Now, please no response to this note (even if I did make more errors).}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-26-2004]

So then your answer is "no rights at all," then? Because I didn't see where you listed any specific rights erosion at all, only more assertions that it was happening.Could you be specific about specifically which rights religions used to have that they don't now?

Since not everyone who reads the site is an American, I thought it might be wise to quickly recap relevant sections of the US Constitution, the document currently under scrutiny.The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

---

aka the Establishment clause.Also relevant are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

quote:

---

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution.

​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

​

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.

​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

which prevents the Bill of Rights from being used as a rationale for denying rights to the people. WT is essentially correct; the Constitution is not a document that bestows rights on people, it's a document that limits the rights of government.Back to your regularly scheduled thread. As far as I can tell, religions enjoy greater rights today than they have at any time in the past, especially religions that don't have the advantage of numbers. If Christianity has lost rights in the modern era, they're rights that they had not as a religion, but as a majority - rights therefore that are not subject to religious protection.

Do you think that you could stop repeating disgusting slanders towards my person, WT? Thanks. I never made that claim. I fully agree that when the rights of some are infringed, we all lose something, and have never claimed otherwise.What I didn't agree with, because you didn't support - and have yet to really do so - was that there's a pattern of religious right erosion.I agree that it would be bad if they were. I don't agree, however, that they are. It would be nice if you could remember the arguments that I actually made instead of making things up out of whole cloth in order to distract attention from your failing positions, ok?We had the blackmail discussion already. You asked for third-party mediation, promised to abide by it, and recieved it. Is there some reason you now see fit to break that promise?

You're going to have explain further because I don't understand.When you say "erosion", that sounds to me like you mean that entities (whatever we're talking about) are losing rights that they should have.Obviously humans living in communities don't have infinite rights. They don't have a right to murder and steal with impunity, for instance. But that's not a situation I consider "erosion" - that's striking a balance between the good of the community and the freedom of the individual.When you make a claim of "erosion", you're saying something specific - that religions are losing rights that they should otherwise expect to have. But your examples have all been of religions failing to get special treatment - not losing rights.People in America don't have the right to use certain mind-altering drugs. The courts affirmed that religion doesn't give you more rights to drugs than you have as a private citizen.I don't consider that situation "erosion." But this seemed to be a point that others were making just fine on their own, so I didn't see fit to contribute.I can understand your frustration, however, at my non-participation in a topic you believe I started to make fun of you. If you really want one more linebacker on the dogpile, well, that's your funeral. If that's what you really want then you can expect my participation.

I appreciate the thought but I think you do others a disservice by minimizing their contributions to the thread. If you think that my contribution is likely to overshadow the other august personages involved here then I suspect you're in for a disappointment.I hope you can appreciate that it'll take me a while to catch up in this thread; I don't want to jump back in without a clear idea of what's been going on so far. Ok?

WT, just wanted you to know that I do intend to keep my promise to participate here, and I'm following the exchange very closely, but as yet, I don't have anything to add. Just a heads-up.

Despite having married into a family of rabid Packers fans, I still have no idea what you just said.