|
|
If you had the power and the opportunity to rewrite the sections of the US Constitution (or the laws of any other country) regarding religion, what would you change?
(In my youthful innocence I was at first suprised when all the bishops came out against having freedom of religion in the constitution - until I realized they were worried about the privaledged status of the traditional churches.)
Unfortunately the current Federal Government is giving federal social security work and funding to church organizations and increasing funding of church run schools (at the expense of public schools) and there is nothing I can do about it except vote for politicians that oppose giving public money to sectarian organizations.
Basically what George Dubbya is proposing has already been done here in Australia and they are seeking to go even further. Hopefully we will see a change of Government later this year but even so, the Labor Party is unlikely to undo everything that the Liberals have instituted. (Lots of good catholic boys in the Labor Party...)
You guys in the US have a great advantage in having a constitution which guarantees separation of church and state.
Lucky lucky bastards! (Mark Richardson #1095)
"The United States is a secular nation. The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion, and in matters concerning religion, provided no other rights are involved, shall remain scrupulously neutral. The government will not fund any religious activity, and will require religious institutions to pay their fair share of taxes including, but not limited to, property taxes.
The government will not interfere with the rights of the citizens to worship as they please, as long as it violates no other right. This provision also explicitly includes the right not to worship and not to belong to any religious organization.
All forms of discrimination, harassment, or persecution because of one's religious beliefs, or lack of them, is prohibited."
I would leave the other provisions regarding speech, the press, assembly, and redress the same. (John Hachmann #1782)
That should just about cover creationism, property taxes for churches, blue laws, etc. (Fred Stone #1369)
I would state that religious beliefs and practices do not convey immunity from civil litigation or criminal prosecution; if you let your child die from a disease that could have been cured with forty cents worth of penicillin, I could give a rat's ass about whether you're a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Scientist. You don't have the right to condemn another person to a needless, painful death, whether or not that person shares your Grade-A genes.
For any proposed law restricting individual freedom, I would require the statute to contain a brief explanation of why the law is necessary. Any such law based on religious principles is automatically null and void. For example, a law sanctioning anti-gay discrimination would not be able to cite Leviticus, or any cloaked argument that obviously derives from Leviticus.
I would also include a clause (in the preamble, maybe) to make it clear that the United States does not "belong" to any one faith or fanatical fringe group.
(ShrubNeptune)
Legal systems are like raincoats; the problem is we keep trying to patch holes instead of getting a new one. Modern legal systems look like a hobo's jacket, there's more patch than material, and they don't protect us like they're supposed to. (Bob Dog #153)
Should be enough.
But to honest I would never dare to change anyt constitution, that is the right of the people only. (Peter van Velzen #1107)
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no public test shall be required as a qualification for any public office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
It starts off well and is a good start but has been watered down by the High Court in the DOGS case. Nothing to enshrine an individual's right to worship or not worship as s/he pleases. The government can not legislate to require religious observance of citizens but the citizen has no specific right of worship if this can be compromised in other ways. It speaks only of what government can and can not do. It is also taken to refer to favouring some faiths over others and not against government involvement with religious institutions in general.
$Billions are given by governments each year to religious schools and to welfare agencies. Equal rights legislation exempts religious institutions from equal opportunity in the workplace. The money flood has increased with the Lyons Forum infested Howard government even as state schools are receiving less. This is constitutional because Moonies, Hare Krishna, COS, Muslims, YEC fundy schools and others are not being discriminated against. Public school teachers are protected
by 116 but not religious school teachers. Public servants are protected but not workers in faith based welfare agencies who are now doing work that used to be done by public servants. Tony Abbot wrote to me assuring me discrimination will not happen but it has and he has defended this malpractice in parliament.
A referendum in 1988 to enshrine freedom of religion in the constitution was defeated and the churches themselves led the fight against it. (Meteorite Debris #1417)
Obviously, I would make the concept of a "state"-religion much less tenable.
This only seems prudent, given the increase in people from diverging cultures the US is going to be dealing with this century.
Just my thoughts as a Brit. ("The" Owen #1883)
Click here to return to master question page.
2) The state should not base its laws and decisions on any religion or religious dogma, even if multiple religions hold it.
3) Religious organizations should be subject to the same laws or tax exemptions as non-profit organizations, or as parties minus the political rights.
4) No school for ages below 18 should be allowed to be run by religious organizations, parties or other ideology-based groups. Above 18, no private schools except for those for the handicapped should receive state funding.
5) Every school for ages below 18 schould follow statewide standards on what to teach, but is free to choose method and extra teaching material if it is not partisan or religious ideology. But every school is required to run Religion and Politics courses that introduce the different options, preferably with a meeting with holders of some.
6) Everyone, including every child, is free to believe or not, to worship or not, and to take part in or stay away from a religious practice as s/he pleases, unless it infringes on the rights of others or causes unacceptable damage to the environment.
As for US Constitution, AFAIK most of the above is included, but - worded two centuries ago - is not clear enough. As for the Hungarian and German constitutions, which I know better, abolishing state funding and tax exemptions seems the most important thing to change, even if the former is distributed among all registered churches. (Daneel #323)
