Preciously. It is the freedom to wander around the ward of of their earthly captivity, to rant and rave of the great beyond. Why have the rest of us been so patient for so long? It is most often a malady acquired during childhood, a malady passed on by well meaning, but ignorant, ill informed and deluded parents. If we could just get parents to stop lying to their children, what a changed and better world this would be. GROG
Sir Isaac Newton was a religious folk. Would you say that to his face? 51% of US scientists believe in God. Would you say that to their faces?
Freedom of religion gives you the right to not be religious. By attacking the sanity of religious people you are basically telling them how to live. As you say, freedom of religion does not give you the right to tell other people how to live.
" By attacking the sanity of religious people you are basically telling them how to live."
So when a Christian missionary goes to a tribe of indigenous people and brings them the "Gospel" is he or she telling those people how to live when he says their god are not real, or are demons?
The acid test for me is to take anything any religious person says about their beliefs and replace the word god with Jelly and Blancmange, and church or similar with the Rice pudding factory and then repeat it back.
'Our Jelly and Blancmange who is in the Rice pudding Factory , hallowed be your name. Your the Rice pudding Factory come, your will be done, on earth as it is in the Rice pudding Factory . Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the the Rice pudding Factory , the power and the glory, for ever and ever Amen'"
If it sounds totally insane, then they probably are, and providing I was sure they were not subscribing to that grand old American, totally sane, practice of openly carrying a gun in public... then yes I would say it to their face.
Because you do not want to piss of a person saying fucking insane things who is carrying a loaded weapon.
By the way Newton was also an alchemist and a sorcerer who believe in no end of genuinely insane things
his Biographer David Brewster, lamented as to..
He was also a pathological misogynist who believed the sole purpose of women was to distract "men of genius" such as himself from higher thought and logic.
@LenHazell53 If the children on the playground are calling each other names, someone has to step up and be the first to break that cycle by expressing respect lest a fight break out.
That might not matter over there but our kids are all armed.
βNewton called light particles, knowing the concept to be an effective theory useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall: The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves. Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called wave/particle duality.β
I expect that if Newton were alive today heβd be at the forefront of quantum physics. Heβd probably be a champion of cold fusion, which has its βalchemyβ aspect, and the world would be better for it.
So far as women, Newtonβs desire was to avoid romantic entanglements so that he could devote his life to the study of the mystery of the basis of reality. That doesnβt mean that he hated women. We all benefit from his decision.
Dear religious folk,
It's much like Freedom of Speech(tm). You aren't necessarily allowed to do anything you want to. You're just allowed to expect no American government interference.
Your religion isn't immune from other citizens' criticism or ridicule -- just the government's. And you're not allowed to do criminal acts in the name of your religion.
You still have to behave like a responsible member of society.
From the interweb (they said it clearly)(talking about the government):
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing" ) religion in any way.
In 1971, the Supreme Court decided Lemon v. Kurtzman which created three tests for determining whether a particular government act or policy unconstitutionally promotes religion.
The Lemon test says that in order to be constitutional, a policy must: