Religious Freedom @ MindSay 
If we follow the constitution to the letter, then it means two things:
1. There is to be no "official religion" of the United States
2. Congress will not interfere with any religious practice, period.
The first premise is easy to follow. Treat all religions equally, giving no special favor to one over the others. But the second comes with a great philosophical quandry. Is the position written down really adequate to address the issue?
Obviously, we can't follow it to the letter, and we don't. We can't follow it because anyone could make up a religion (religions are essentially "made up" by people in their beginning, the ones with more creedence were just made up long ago), pick a crime, make that crime a religious rite, commit that crime, and get away with it because congress can't interfere with religious practices.
That may seem like an extreme scenario, but it isn't really. Rastafarians, for example, use marijuana in their religious rituals. If we were following the constitution, we'd have to make an exception for them. I'd personally support that conclusion, but what about practices that harm others? What about groups like the People's Temple, the Branch Davidians, or the Manson Family?
Polygamy and sex with minors is forbidden in the United States, despite the fact that the laws interfere with the teachings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is one area where freedom and safety clash. We can't follow the constitution in this case because we know that forcing a 12-year-old girl to marry a 30-year-old man is abusive behavior. Our morality dictates that a marriage is something the couple enters into willingly and of their own free will. Our common sense dictates that children who are 12-years-old are not capable of making those decisions.
Obviously, the constitution is not enough to rule on the issue in this case. We need to adjust its interpretation, and that's why we have courts. It's obvious that we cannot allow blanket and absolute freedom of religion in this country, because that would mean allowing Islamic terrorists to blow up buildings as a religious ritual. That would mean allowing a 12-year-old to continue being sexually abused in a polygamist marriage. We draw the line somewhere.
I'm not against polygamy. I wouldn't want to do it personally, but if your religion says you must have more than one wife/husband, or if you just plain want to, that's cool with me. I have no problem with it as long as the relationship is between consenting adults. The government doesn't need to be sticking it's nose into our bedrooms, dictating who or how many people we marry or just sleep with for a while. The government's job is to keep the children out of our bedrooms.
Egypt court upholds Baha'i plea in religious freedom cases
CAIRO
29 January 2008 (BWNS)
In a victory for religious freedom, a lower administrative court here today ruled in favor of two lawsuits that sought to resolve the government's contradictory policy on religious affiliation and identification papers.
The Court of Administrative Justice in Cairo upheld arguments made in two cases concerning Baha'is who have sought to restore their full citizenship rights by asking that they be allowed to leave the religious affiliation field blank on official documents.
"Given the degree to which issues of religious freedom stand at the heart of human rights issues in the Middle East, the world should cheer at the decision in these two cases today," said Bani Dugal, the principal representative of the Baha'i International Community to the United Nations.
"The compromise offered by the Baha'is in these two cases opens the door to a way to reconcile a government policy that was clearly incompatible with international law -- as well as common sense," said Ms. Dugal.
"Our hope now is that the government will quickly implement the court's decision and allow Baha'is once again to enjoy the full rights of citizenship to which they are duly entitled," said Ms. Dugal.
The decisions today concerned two cases, both filed by Baha'is, over the issue of how they are to be identified on government documents.
The first case involves a lawsuit by the father of twin children, who is seeking to obtain proper birth certificates for them. The second concerns a college student, who needs a national identity card to re-enroll in university.
The government requires all identification papers to list religious affiliation but restricts the choice to the three officially recognized religions -- Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Baha'is are thus unable to obtain identification papers because they refuse to lie about their religious affiliation.
Without national identify cards -- or, as in the case of the twin children, birth certificates -- Baha'is and others caught in the law's contradictory requirements are deprived of a wide range of citizenship rights, such as access to employment, education, and medical and financial services.
These problems were highlighted in a report issued in November by Human Rights Watch and the Cairo-based Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR).
"Employers, both public and private, by law cannot hire someone without an ID, and academic institutions require IDs for admission," said the report. "Obtaining a marriage license or a passport requires a birth certificate; inheritance, pensions, and death benefits are contingent on death certificates. The Ministry of Health has even refused to provide immunizations to some Baha'i children because the Interior Ministry would not issue them birth certificates accurately listing their Baha'i religion."
The issuance of birth certificates is at the heart of the first case, which concerns 14-year-old twins Imad and Nancy Rauf Hindi. Their father, Rauf Hindi, obtained birth certificates that recognized their Baha'i affiliation when they were born.
But new policies require computer generated certificates, and the computer system locks out any religious affiliation but the three officially recognized religions. And without birth certificates, the children are unable to enroll in school in Egypt.
The second lawsuit was filed by the EIPR last February on behalf of 18-year-old Hussein Hosni Bakhit Abdel-Massih, who was suspended from the Suez Canal University's Higher Institute of Social Work in January 2006 due to his inability to obtain an identity card because of his refusal to falsely identify himself as either a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew.
In both cases, lawyers representing the Baha'is have made it clear that they were willing to settle for cards or documents on which the religious affiliation field is left blank or filled in, perhaps, as "other."
This solution is what makes these two cases different from the lawsuit that was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court last year. In that ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected a decision by the lower that upheld the right of Baha'is to be properly identified on government documents.
For more information go to:
http://news.bahai.org/story/595
and/or
http://www.bahai.org/persecution/egypt
SOURCE: Baha'i World News Service:
http://news.bahai.org/story/600
.jpg)
The USCIRF (U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom) has released its worse offenders of religious freedom.
Is it any surprise who the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom names as religious freedom violators? The top of the list are Mohammedan nations. The top Mohammedan violators of religious freedom are Saudi Arabia and Iran: The home of the Wahhabi and Messianic Shi'ites respectively.
Communist China has loosened a little on persecution, but only a little. Anything the Marxist regime feels is a threat to Communist Party hegemony will be persecuted. Christians are a huge target because it teaches a greater allegiance to God than to the State. North Korea is a horrific tormentor of religion and Christians. The Communist cult in North Korea borders on religious parameters surrounding the leader of the State.
In Mohammedan lands there is absolutely zero tolerance to anything that might compete with devilish cult founded by Mohammed in the 600's A.D. Mohammed made provision for slavery for Jews and Christians within Mohammedan lands terming them Dhimmi. A Dhimmi is told they are protected however the reality is a slave mentality that denigrates a Christian or Jew's existence. Any deviation from Mohammedan Sharia Law by a Dhimmi is the death penalty; even if Sharia is counter to the religious beliefs of the Christian or Jew.
If a person is outside of Christianity or Judaism, they have even less rights. Death is the usual proclamation.
The Kafir is the term for people living outside of Mohammedan uses for non-believers. A Kafir is in danger of death his whole life in a Mohammedan land.