»America invented freedom of religion«
|
|||
|
fatpie42: America doesn't have freedom of religion. I just saw this one! Another fatpie42 classic like "Britain is the oldest democracy" and "America doesn't have a history." What part of these words do you not understand, fatpie? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. America doesn't have freedom of religion? America invented freedom of religion! posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)America invented freedom of religion |
|
|||
 Then how come you tell everyone to swear that they all "one nation under God". Surely freedom of religion should include the freedom not to have one? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: Another fatpie42 classic like "Britain is the oldest democracy" When the hell did I say that? You said that we didn't HAVE democracy in Britain. I claimed that we DO have democracy. I didn't make any judgments on how old it is. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Then how come you tell everyone to swear that they all "one nation under God". Surely freedom of religion should include the freedom not to have one? God is a generic term allah is arabic for God and most religions pray to god so it is okay. 1.You are never forced to pledge allegiance 2.The face that muslims live in America and there are no laws agains them shows that there is indeed freedom of religion. 3.Un christian temples (muslim, buddhist ETc...) exist without being torn down. fatpie42: I said Britain has a democracy ...I thought you had a queen? posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Surely freedom of religion should include the freedom not to have one? Actually READ my posts before you answer them Whether muslims are accepted in America is irrelevant to my above question. (Also whether a country has a democracy is irrelevant to whether it has a Queen. We don't elect the queen because she is not the one with political power. In fact we elect all the MPs -like the foreign secretary for example- not just the prime minister.) P.S. I would suggest that the last few posts are moved to the "you are a banana" (or whatever it's called) irrelevant discussions section... posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: (Also whether a country has a democracy is irrelevant to whether it has a Queen. We don't elect the queen because she is not the one with political power. In fact we elect all the MPs -like the foreign secretary for example- not just the prime minister.) On paper you have a constitutional monarchy, the head of Canada on paper only is the Queen. In Canada we have a constitutional democracy. posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kupov: fatpie42: (Also whether a country has a democracy is irrelevant to whether it has a Queen. We don't elect the queen because she is not the one with political power. In fact we elect all the MPs -like the foreign secretary for example- not just the prime minister.) On paper you have a constitutional monarchy, the head of Canada on paper only is the Queen. In Canada we have a constitutional democracy. What's Canada got to do with it? What's the monarchy got to do with it? The main individual responsible for governing this country is called Tony Blair and he was elected. Therefore we have a democracy! What am I missing here?  Learn some history. I know there is a lot more of it in Britain, but I'm sure you can handle it! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: The main individual responsible for governing this country is called Tony Blair and he was elected. Therefore we have a democracy! What am I missing here? You'r missing the fact that instead of having a democracy you have a constitutional monarchy. We do not have a democracy here either we have a constitutional democracy, that's what it is ON PAPER. fatpie42: Learn some history. I know there is a lot more of it in Britain, but I'm sure you can handle it!  where did that come from?
posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kupov: fatpie42: The main individual responsible for governing this country is called Tony Blair and he was elected. Therefore we have a democracy! What am I missing here? You'r missing the fact that instead of having a democracy you have a constitutional monarchy. We do not have a democracy here either we have a constitutional democracy, that's what it is ON PAPER. Kupov, we have a democracy. A democratic system is one where the citizens elect their government. Your country has one. My country has one. What the official term for the 'type' of governments we have is, is irrelevant. We have the monarchy because we are too sentimental to get rid of it and, besides, it provides extra tourism to the country (mostly from Americans who think having a Queen is 'quaint'). P.S. I am sorry about the "read a history book" comment. I was just feeling a little ganged up on and I was reacting to Holy of Holies earlier comment. I recognise that you didn't make the comment and that my reaction was out of order. Sorry dude. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's what dictionary.com has to say: 1 - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2 - A political or social unit that has such a government. 3 - The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4 - Majority rule. 5 - The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've noticed that I am a bit offtopic in the last few posts. Admittedly we were clearing up a technicality, but I feel I really ought to get things back up track now... Surely 'freedom of religion' should include the freedom not to have one? Any opinions on this? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Then how come you tell everyone to swear that they all "one nation under God". I think the point of that statement is to say that they are all equal under some common, universal justice system. But you're right, the statement is misleading. fatpie42: Surely 'freedom of religion' should include the freedom not to have one? Wouldn't that be a recursive statement if you considered that not having a religion was in itself a religion? Anyhow, I think we're just nitpicking here, every government should recognize this freedom of the individual - it is only individual religious texts/authorities that may beg to differ. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Here's what dictionary.com has to say: Without disagreeing with the definitions... but: dictionary.com sucks, please try to use wiki or so. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 holy_of_holies: America invented freedom of religion! You mean there has never ever been a single tribe/nation/city-state that tolerated all religions? Didn't the..Ottoman Empire do that? posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: holy_of_holies: America invented freedom of religion! You mean there has never ever been a single tribe/nation/city-state that tolerated all religions? Didn't the..Ottoman Empire do that? The Ottoman Empire was a Sunni Muslim-ruled theocracy that allowed people of religions other than Islam (Christians and Jews mind you, I don't imagine the "pagans" were allowed to do their thing) to live and worship in separate districts from the Muslims. If you consider that to be "freedom of religion" then yes, the Ottomans had freedom of religion. But it is a historical fallacy to compare the Ottoman Empire to the US. Every ruler (sultan) of the Ottoman Empire was a Sunni Muslim, while even the third president of the United States was not a Christian. Also the Ottoman Empire was not a constitutional democracy like the US; it was a dictatorship of the sultan. Here is a short description of the way the Ottoman state was organized at its highest levels (emphasis mine) Though the sultan was the sublime monarch he had a number of advisors and ministers. The most powerful of these were the viziers of the Divan, led by the Grand Vizier. The Divan was a council where the viziers met and debated the politics of the empire. It was the Grand Vizier's duty to inform the sultan of the opinion of the divan. The sultan often took his vizier's advices in consideration, but he by no means had to obey the divan. Sometimes the sultan called a divan meeting himself if he had something important to inform his viziers of, such as coming war. The viziers then carried out his orders. The divan consisted of three viziers in the 14th century and eleven in the 17th century, four of them served as Viziers of the Dome, the most important ministers next to the Grand Vizier. Sometimes the commander (ağa) of the Janissaries attended at the divan meetings as well. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 17:59 php B.B. |