What is Religion?

There's wise saying:"when you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging. No one said Easton's opinions trump the bill of rights, least of all Easton. And the definition of politics I provided has nothing directly to do with the Bill of Rights.

If you are talking about the quotation from Easton, of course it's constitutionally viable. The Constitution contains the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights provides for freedom of speech & press. Professor Easton is exercising that right and not saying anything particularly controversial in doing so, certainly not anything about the Constitution, religion, liberty, or anything .controversial. Go back and read his statement a few times. Maybe it will be clear to you you misunderstood it. .

In general, they aren't, unless they bring to work contagious diseases or refuse to take steps necessary to protect their co-workers--vaccinations, masks, etc. When religions promote irrational beliefs that are harmful to others, we can reasonably regulate them. T

Please be more specific. What businesses are you talking about? How are they being destroyed? As I pointed out, the Supreme Court struck down OSHA provisions requiring Covid vaccinations for all workers in businesses hiring 100 or more, but allowed the DHHS to require them for health care workers. Sounds reasonable to me.

What articles did I post without giving the source. There was nothing about yours to indicate it came from Scientific American.

It helps to read your posts and make sure you explain they're someone else's before yuo post them.

Congratulations. You did it right this time.

I did read it. Nothing wrong with my initial response, although I was puzzled by the big letters. You obviously posted the article, just as you posted the out-of-context quotation by Durkheim because you think it strengthens your position. But really showing that science isn't infallible doesn't show we should pitch it out the window when dealing with a pandemic. As I often say, "nothing is certain, not even that. Life is a gamble, but I like to make educated bets, and so do most other intelligent people. So I go by my doctor's advice on health matters rather than the home remedies of Aunt Millie, and I give more weight to Fauci's opinions on vaccinations than I do demagogues like Trump or Desantis, or anonymous conspiracy theorists like QAnon.

 

But when either of them become vendors and enter the commercial arena as providers covered by the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act, they need to abide by the law. The commerce clause, part of the constitution, says Congress can set those rules.

The Supreme Court has said "No right is absolute, not even the First Amendment. We can't cry fire in a crowded theater, practice human sacrifices, or stone adulteresses to death. At least that's the way it's been as long as our Constitution has been in existence, thank God!

 

.Rights trump privileges, or at least thats the way it used to be when we created the Bill of Rights.

 

well, I was thinking of the one in Post #84, where you ask: "Does the substance cause all individuals harm or place them are those around them in eminent danger?"

Nothing wrong with advocating such a position. The distinction between harm and injury is a bit obscure.

 

We went off topic on a thread asking" What is Religion" when you brought up Durkheim in what appears to be a circuitous effort to advance right wing claims about government vaccination programs and denial of services to gays. Both of those matters were being discussed when I got into the act, presumably because you who brought them up, thought they were on topic then..

Which of your positions do you think I'm restating incorrectly?

 

This begs the question "which is which?" In the 50s, did an African-American have a right to drink from the white drinking fountain or be served at a segregated lunch counter? If he tried to do that, was he exercising a right or a privilege? It took decisions of Congress and the Supreme Court to make clear that (s)he did. Today, does a gay couple have a right to purchase a cake or digital web services from a vendor engaged in a commercial business licensed by the state. Stay tuned for the latest Supreme Court decision?
"Legal Right.
a claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it
b
: the interest in a claim which is recognized by and protected by sanctions of law imposed by a state, which enables one to possess property or to engage in some transaction or course of conduct or to compel some other person to so engage or to refrain from some course of conduct under certain circumstances, and for the infringement of which claim the state provides a remedy in its courts of justice." Definition of LEGAL RIGHT

 

Excellent job, so far!Wisconsin v. Yoder seems to be the most relevant to the issues raised by ShyOne. ;

 

Thats a good place to start.

I think Durkheim did a wonderful job sorting out the core components to answer the question of 'what really is religion'.

The OP described the 'subject matter' under review and did not include every other utterance that Durkheim made from the day he was born forward, (a category fallacy) outside the OP's description as Tishomingo is attempting to argue.

No one has demonstrated a 'requirement' for religion to be a democracy as has so far been promoted and argued.

To claim religion can be owned/held/created by a group but not a single individual in the group defies logic. (composition fallacy)

which is why I have continually told those with closed ears "Its circumstantial"

The intention of this thread was to discuss the core components of every religion (best characterization/description) as proposed by Durkheim as portrayed in the OP.

So far the thread went everywhere but....

 

There you go again with your out of context quote. Durkheim said that religion was essentially the product of society, and defined it clearly as :: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden–beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church (community), all those who adhere to them.” No room for private individual religion there. The passage you keep cting does not say what you say it says. "a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action." All he is saying here is that religion must be put into action--in the context of socially defined communal rites and rituals involving the sacred."

So when the OP posts something that is an inaccurate representation of the views of a distinguished sociologist, and proceeds to use that misrepresentation to lend gravitas to half-baked ideas about individual religion or private morality that are diametrically opposed to Durkheim's, no one can call her on it? It reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Who on earth argued that?

Dependent on the circumstances? including a lot of unnecessary and insignificant details? What Is a Circumstantial Thought Process? ; pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it? Incidental to the main subject, but of less importance; opposed to an essential?

In that case, I suggest we try another thread , since the OP seems to be hopelessly confused.

No wonder!

 

Nowhere does it say what you are arguing in the OP quote, its your out of context response.

If you wish to discuss every utterance Durkheim made both those he stood by and those he later abandoned why dont you make a thread for that purpose.

 

While waiting for Meagain's next post, maybe I can sha

I'm arguing your garbled interpretation of it, which seems to be that relgion=private moral views. If that's not what you're saying what is?

 

if you have a beef about 'individual' religion you need to prove up the point, otherwise its like saying that a glass of water is not composed of 'individual' molecules of H and O which is to say the whole can exist without the parts.

Which if that is not clear enough you need to demonstrate in argument that an organized religion is not composed of a group of individuals each with their own personal private religion.

 

My beef is with your attributing it to Durkheim. It's the very opposite of what he thought, which was that there could be no religion apart from society and a community of believers.

Durkheim would say the individuals got it form the community. He might be wrong about that, but that was his view. If you don't agree with it, fine; but you should take responsibility for what is your own position.

.

 

Maybe we can also take a look at the latest case before the Supreme Court on the subject of serving gays by businesses brought by the Collorado web designer, Lori Smith. The Supreme court must be really interested in the case, because they dispensed with the usual requirements of standing and genuinecase or controversy, about which conservatives tend to be sticklers, and let her challenge the law before any gay sought to enlist her services--which they probably won't.In addition to the usual religious conscience angle, she/s arguing freedom of expression based on her artistic artistry. Seems to me, this would be a difficult standard for the Court to apply. A baker and a web desigher are artsits. The local hardware store owner is probably not. But what about a chef in Ollie's Barbecue who thinks that the Bible is against the mixing of races? http://www.biblerays.com/uploads/8/0/4/2/8042023/the_bible_forbids_mixing_of_races.pdf (in fairness to the Bible, I think this interpretation is wrong, but obviously the preacher I just cited does not.)

 

It most certainly does in the US.

In order to get the people to ratify the constitution the incorporation of reserved rights (Expressly stated in the Bill of Rights) had to be agreed upon 'first' to be added contingent to the agreement.

The 'Bill of Rights' memorializes the conditions 'We The People' agree to be governed.

Since "the free exercise thereof" places the peoples religion 'above' the regulatory capabilities of government they just sort of forgot that section all together pretending it does not exist.

The constitution is the organic public law of this land.

The Bill of Rights expressly limits the powers 'granted' to the government, by the 'people'.

It does not say or imply by any scope of the imagination you can only 'exercise' your religion in private as you and others seem to wish to portray, which in fact would be contrary to its purpose on every level which is to express and memorialize your 'inherent' rights in public!