How Far Does Religious Freedom Go?

Indiana is currently in the midst of a national
uproar over it’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Major state politicians, LGBT groups,
and tech companies have all spoken out against the bill, saying it will lead to discriminations
against gays and lesbians in the name of religion. So what’s going on? How much religious freedom
do we have in the US? And does this bill protect that or is it just discriminatory? So, first amendment things, first. American
citizens are guaranteed freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
That’s at the CORE of this entire country’s political system. But over the years, asterisks
have been added to this principle. Like – you don’t have the freedom to yell “fire”
in a crowded theatre. And, in terms of religious freedom – after a landmark 1878 Supreme Court
case, the Chief Justice declared that you can’t express your religion at the cost
of “social duties” and “good order”. Okay, so human sacrifices are out, but what
about refusing to work on Saturdays because it’s against your religion? Or choosing
to withdraw your children from school due to religious conflicts? A number of supreme
court cases in the last century focused on narrowing the gray area of legally-acceptable
religious freedoms. Many cases hinged on something called “compelling interest”. This means
that if the government doesn’t have a strong constitutional reason to protect the public’s
interests, then any interference in an individual’s religious practices could be deemed unconstitutional. The 1993 FEDERAL Religious Freedom Restoration
Act reflected this sentiment. It was passed following two lawsuits publicly considered
to unnecessarily violate the religious rights of Native Americans. It said that even though
a law is religiously neutral, it can still have a negative effect or “burden” on
religious practices. So the RFRA clarified that a law may only constitutionally “burden”
one’s religious practices when doing so both advances a compelling government interest,
and there is no “less restrictive” way to do so. However, the law did provide legal standing
for unintended forms of discrimination. Take for instance, the Hobby Lobby Supreme
Court Case from 2014, wherein a company refused to offer their employees birth control on
religious grounds. Based on the argument that corporations can be considered “people”
due to an earlier Supreme Court ruling, the government wasn’t allowed to significantly
burden the company’s religious practices, and upheld their refusal. Similarly, Indiana’s recent passage of their
own Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been especially incendiary for fear that it
could allow businesses the right to discriminate against gay people in the face of a looming
landmark Supreme Court decision regarding same sex marriage. So, is Indiana’s new religious freedom act
discriminatory? Experts say yes; in its current form, the law could be used to discriminate
on the basis of religious freedom. There are quite a few other places across
America that have no legal protection from discrimination for the LGBT community. To
learn about this issue in more detail, watch our video here. Thank you for subscribing
to TestTube, we appreciate your support!

  1. Catholic 😀😃😊☺ well Roman Catholic 😉😎 if people want to believe in religion that's awesome if they don't well it's still OK I don't mind as long they don't try to disrespect religions or try to complain about religion here in the USA ur not force to be religious or be one type of religion, so I don't see why people complain about religion or talk bad about religion in the USA
    Why people talk bad about religion???

  2. "Free from the panacea of religion, individuals would be able to think, act and fashion their own reality with illusions lost and reason regained."

  3. Let Indiana pass their act. It may seem bullshit but being queer is even worse! If a company wants to deny someone service then let them! You can't deny freedom of speech in order to please a minority. Trying to protect someone while putting down another is hypocrisy! If you oppose someone's opinion in favour of your own then why would you respect? Again Hypocrisy!

  4. On LGBT rights, May governments just get out if the scene and privatise marriage. You and your partner can just declare yourselves married and it is as simple as that. Someone asked about polygamous and incestuous marriages, and I would tell the bigot : Doesn't affect you I suppose,

  5. How about we make a law where we leave religion at home and at church or any where were people gather to pray

  6. Notes: If you're watching a religious (or has some religious references or something like that) video, stay away from the comments

  7. If you are a Christian and you are refusing to sell to someone because they oppose your beliefs, then you need a big fat wake up call because that is NOT what Christ called you to do! Wake up friends, as a Christian, it is you against the world. As a Christian you ARE the opposition. Christ called us to love EVERYONE not just those who fit your sad idea of normal. Christ loved everyone, Jew and Gentile, black man and white, straight man, homosexual, do gooders and prostitutes alike. He loved those who were rejected and just because he opposed what someone did does NOT mean he didn't love those people willingly, genuinely, and relentlessly. Get over yourselves, you weren't called to be self absorbed and self centered. You weren't called to be stingy and grumpy, do you have any idea what kind of picture that paints for us Christians whose name is already tainted? Christ came down to teach us how to love. You were called to love!

    If you are a salesperson, manager or owner of a store, and a homosexual wants to purchase your goods, you do it, and bless them, you love them and you tell them to have a great life on the way out, you do this with a smile. You make them feel wanted! Do it with a genuine heart, don't do it as a rule, do it because you want to, because you know it's right. 

    Homosexuals and those rejected by the world, you are LOVED and you are wanted!

  8. The problem with U.S Laws is that their all old and out dated created by white fundamentalists who were never secular to begin with.

  9. What's the point of running a business that provides services to the people, if you deny service to certain members of the community for some reason that isn't logical and is based on the delusion that there is an all powerful being watching you constantly. Sounds more like psychosis than religion to me.

  10. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is NOT the will of God. As a Christian I must have the right to quote the Bible. The Word of God is the foundation for our faith. I do not live in the USA. I live in Sweden. But I do defend and stand up for the American Christians and their right to exercise their faith.
    If the gay community can't stand this it must be a very weak community.

  11. I am however against discriminating people. If a homosexual man or woman is a good worker he or she should be hired regardless of his or her preferences. That does not mean that a Christian boss has to agree with them when it comes to sexual orientation. The gay community has no right to impose their views on us.

  12. well the first big problem is that a corporation is considered a person. How can I building and paper work be a person?

  13. If a gay person refuses service or employment because I don't share his or her opinion yeah he's a hero and he gets admiration for his or her bravery. But if I do it it's hate, and I can sued for "discrimination.

  14. Who the fuck cares? If a private business doesn't accept certain customers on grounds of race or religion, it's their right to do so. It's also a right of citizens to boycott businesses they don't like. The problem fucking solves itself, why are we trying to fix something that needs no fixing?!

  15. I think what everyone misses in this debate is that a person isn't being discriminated against but a request is. Many companies that make custom content have restrictions. In the case of a wedding cake, can govt force a person to perform acts that go against their religious (or even political) beliefs? Constitutionally, no. 

  16. While government may not burden companies with undue restrictions on religious freedom because they are individuals under the law, they can burden them if the practice of their religious freedom is found to be discriminatory or against good faith(ie. the Interstate Commerce Act and the Civil Rights Acts). It is the corporations duty under Corporate Social Responsibility to accommodate employees religious freedom but they cannot act as an individual to deprive services due to the practice of the beliefs of the stockholders or owners of the company. If you are publicly traded company then you have to follow all public laws and forms of good faith, if you are a closely held company you still must still follow good faith unless you a worker's cooperative or membership club.

  17. All freedom goes as far as where other people's Natural Rights begin. "But, but, there's no such thing as natural rights!"… Umm, YES, there is. You have a right to your life, right? You have a right to be left alone, right?… "But, but!!! Science can't prove natural rights! Neil degrasse proved rights don't exist by mixing baking soda and vinegar, under the supervision of Bill Nye!!!" … Ugh.

  18. Humans will keep in devieding them self till they extent Extinct . that would be so good for earth and nature so stupid viruses lol

  19. You have the right to your religion but your religious rights don't trump the rights of everyone else or other laws.Many religious text say to stone people to death for many offenses,if you throw rocks at people with the intent to kill you will be arrested,you don't have the right to stone people to death just because your religion says so.

  20. Lets see religious freedom is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution (1st Amendment) but it says NOTHING about homosexuals or same-sex “marriage”.

    Now if business A refuses to provide their services for the ceremony for a homosexual couple because it violates the owner's religious beliefs to do so, who would be more adversely affected if they do not get their way? The homosexual couple who has the minor in convenience of going down the street to business B who is more than happy to provide their services for the ceremony or the owner business A paying thousands of dollars in court and lawyer fees and possibly finds who may even force to close business A to keep from being forced to violate his religious belief.

    So who's rights are more adversely affected if they do not get their way? Clearly the rights of the owner of business A are more adversely affected. In most towns all the homosexual couple faces is a little inconvenience, while the owner of business A faces the violation of a clearly stated Constitutional Right, thousands of dollars fees and finds and even possibly the loss of his lively hood, all to protect an alleged right that is not only NOT in the U.S. Constitution but totally foreign to it.

  21. "Corporate personhood" is a misnomer. What the ruling said was that a corporation can be created by religious people that expresses the religious characteristics of its founders. Everyone already implicitly believes this whether they admit it or not. Christian bookstores are "Christian". Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is "pro-gay" like its owners.

  22. discriminating because it's against your religion? c'mon now.
    you have every right to your religion and it will be respected, but when it effects others in a hateful, unequal way, that's telling us to stop. Every person in America deserves rights and deserves to be treated like an American citizen.

  23. Get over it people. People are different and do not all share the same values. I thought liberals were suppose to be the "tolerant" ones… Go to a Muslim country and pull this stunt, you'll end up in prison or dead.

  24. "Experts" say it is discriminatory. You have to make a better argument than that. In logic arguments from authority are the weakest. If you want to make your point you have to prove it. Saying that "experts" say so is not a proof, but an opinion at best. Even if you want to use that argument, the least you can do is provide the source. I am not trying to advocate for or against the law, what I am trying to say is that you really need to do a better job in order to construct a logical argument.

  25. Why not do whatever you want, so long that you don't affect the security and integrity of others. I could care less if somebody chooses to be religious, but as long as they don't impose their beliefs onto me I'm totally fine with it. This isn't limited to religion either.

  26. So people who run businesses in Indiana will have the right to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs and there okay with that? ok.

    But by that same law they should then not have a problem or apparently a right, when a Islamic run hotel or restaurant refuses a Christian or another person based on THEIR religious beliefs.

    Wonder what Christians who support that bill will think when they are being discriminated against

  27. I've seen the dumbest shut from some Christians with my own eyes, when I was at the hospital a Christian was getting her daughter checked to see if she was healthy and when the doctor diagnosed her daughter with leukemia and told the mother she should have her daughter get the surgery or whatever you need to cure it, the mother refused because it was against her religion, and the daughter died 6 months later.

  28. People should be allowed to discriminate, as long as they don't hurt the rights of other people. Does someone have a right to live? Yes, burning heretics at stake is still illegal as hell. Does anyone have a right to eat a pizza? No, it is a contract made between them and the restaurant.

    The government, however, is different from a private individual. If they pass a bill that Muslims are not allowed to run as president, it would be discriminating. The current law only gives each religion and ideology equal rights to discriminate. Nobody is forbidding a grocery to offer food exclusively to gay couples.

  29. "Dear Valued Patrons.  
    Due to my sincerely held religious beliefs, and in light of the RFRA, recently signed by our Dear Leader Pence, I will no longer be doing business with the following persons; nor permitting them in my establishment:

    1.  Divorcees.  Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    2.  Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline.  Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."

    3.  Anyone with a tattoo.   Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

    4.  Anyone born illegitimately.  Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately.  If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you. Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD."

    5.  Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public.  Matthew 6:5-6  "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

    6.  Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry.  Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all.  1 Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

    7.  Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged.  (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you've had a vesectomy, or testicular cancer, I can't serve you.  I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.)  Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."

    8.  Please don't bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut.  Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

    For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says:  "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

    Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience.  It's nothing personal, "love the sinner but hate the sin," and all, but I simply can't serve anyone who would blatantly disregard God's sacred law in such a fashion.  

    Of course this would never happen.  People don't not serve gays because they find it against God's Law.  They do it, by and large, because "teh gays are icky."  Jesus had dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors.  Get over yourselves.

  30. Hmmm… Almost All U.S currency has “In God We Trust” somewhere, the Pledge of Allegiance, required to be said aloud in public schools, has “Under God” under it. Also, some businesses always find excuses to reject service and/or employment to Atheists, LGBTs, and so on. This is totally religious freedom, if you ignore that and Tennessee wanting to make the Bible their State Book, yeah. COUGH COUGH FUCK YOU AMERICA I'D RATHER GO TO SWEEDEN COUGH COUGH OR GERMANY! Also, I like how the Christian Majority, EMPHASIS ON MAJORITY, more than 50% of the population here, say that they're being persecuted by the Government. We have Ted Cruz, a person who wants Church and State INTEGRATION! Not the obviously better SEPARATION. Like I said, fuck this country, I hope someone takes the Capitol city and declares it land of some Non-Arabian country.

  31. I am for equality, but people and businesses should be able to refuse service for whatever reason they want. If they wreck their own customer base then they will be out of a job. Involving Uncle Sam in this is stupid. If the bigots want to refuse your service then take your money elsewhere. It is their loss for driving away customers.

    Also I am religious and disapprove of homosexuality, but that doesn't give me the right to force my views on others. I have friends that are gay, atheist, communist, ect. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we can't be civil and respect each other.

  32. i'm an ex gay, ive been attacked for no longer being gay. The LGBT community is becoming a bully

  33. Come to Singapore and you will see a Mosque, Hindu temple and Chinese temple operating peacefully next to each other.

  34. 0:29 – "Does it just protect that, or is it just discriminatory?"

    False dichotomy!!  Nothing in logic prevents religious dictations from being discriminatory. 

    As for the first amendment, it says that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, it says nothing about state powers, who should technically be able to do so.  However, this is all moot since the Constitution from initial intent is not de facto the law of the land, as is implied later when you demonstrate that the supreme court's most recent precedent is actually the law of the land. 

    0:41 – "You don't have the freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" <— This FUCKING analogy should just die and people who use it are usually trying to curtail speech that they don't like.  The phrase originates from the dipshit chief justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the 1919 Supreme Court Case "Schenck v. United States", who was trying to use it as a bludgeon against people who realized that World War I was a sham conflict and issued leaflets to draft-aged men telling them to resist the draft.  So the next time some fucktard uses "MUH THEATER FIRE" as an argument against some form of speech, remember that the phrase originated in an attempt to punish those who wanted males in the United States to be free from entering a bloody, worthless conflict. 

    As for Reynold's v. United States (1878) it is worthy to note that the violated law in question (the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act) is a direct violation of the first amendment by Congress because it wasn't just a matter of social policy (which might be understandable), but was an explicit target against Mormons.  This is interesting as it shows that the Constitution was usurped as the law of the land as early as 1862.  Now, I think that religious people can go fuck themselves when it comes to contradictions of their dogmas with rational policy prescriptions, but it is interesting to see how irrelevant the Constitution already was and how much power SCOTUS possessed.

    It's hard to assess Lyng vs. Northwest Indian Cemetery because it's a case of bureaucracy vs. sacred-land-shiteaters, and the Employment Div. of Oregon vs. Smith was based on a retarded Peyote ban, so I'm definitely pro-Smith here.

    As for the bill, I think it's good because being allowed to discriminate against other people is good.  I also think that people should look at it more positively.  Homosexuals and butthurt atheists will be able to tell more readily who to boycott.  Homosexuals and atheists themselves could use the bill to discriminate against low quality people from bad religious sects, and even if they are denied this on the grounds that they are "not a religion" they could just start a faux religion and never say that it's a faux religion, then you could start chains and franchises that wouldn't serve anybody who believed in God, which is good.  Unfortunately, the bill doesn't allow for discrimination anyways, because while you could interpret it that way, it is basically the same as the aforementioned federal law, in which government policy deemed "essential" will override the religious practice, and "muh rights" has been the dankest maymay in the US since about 1960, so that would eventually be considered "essential" and then SCOTUS will overrule the bill if that ever happens.

  35. Why does it matter to you what someone does with their penis? Knowing a gay person isn't going to send you to hell.

  36. My religion says I get to throw rocks at Gays when I see them in public, if I don't get to its discrimination against me!

  37. To be blunt, a government should not have the authority to restrict a religion from upholding its values. In truth a government cannot and should not pursue anything involving religious unless it interferes with the integrity of a unaffiliated 3rd party. On the opposite side Christians (I am Christian myself) need to understand that just because someone else made a choice to live that way doesn't mean you deny them the privileges that their straight peers have. No I do not believe that homosexuality is right, but it is their right to choose their destiny. Even God gave man the right to sin. Despite homosexuality being wrong to me, I would not dehumanize someone for it. That is immaturity and not how a faithful Christian should act.

  38. United States of Gay propaganda video dont forget you are sexual perverts and mental issued persons. In year 1992 WHO desicion exlude homosexualism from list of mental disorder is political desicion, no resreach were done by scientists.

  39. 2:40 "is Indiana's new religious freedoms law discriminatory? Experts say, yes it is…"

    which experts? experts of what? this is super vague.
    does anyone know what experts he is referring to?

    From what I have read, the law does not appear to discriminate against individuals in the LGBT community.
    If someone has a link to a good article or source from experts stating how the law discriminates against the LGBT community, I would be eager to read it.
    The articles I have found thus far supporting this assertion simply restate the assertion without evidence or reason, as well as voice opinions of people who are most definitely not experts (who also echo assertions without evidence of reason).

    I find it ironic that the heads of organizations threaten to withdraw their business and participation within Indiana in a blatant act of discrimination against lawmakers who they disagree with politically, all in protest against some fanciful theory of discrimination.

  40. If a Muslim man refused to serve gay customers, you should go buy a cake somewhere else because that would be racist. Lot of Muslim bakeries did as Steven Crowder showed. But these brand of Liberals are hypocrites and only want to bully Christians. #LiberalWorks

  41. These christian religious freedom nutjobs would be the first to cry discrimination if anyone refused them anything because they were christians. Their bullshit answer is always that being gay is a choice so that is why it is ok to discriminate against someone. Well your stupid religion is a choice too so anyone should have the freedom to discriminate and refuse them anything too if they want to and I hope they do.

  42. Religious freedom isn't worth shit.
    Nobody should be allowed to have a religion that tells you to do anything against the law. If you believe in a God that tells you to do so, you're having a higher authority than the constitution/law which means you deserve punishment.

  43. Why do these delusionally religious fanatics get special privileges and the rest of don't?! We pay our taxes too. We contribute to the better of society too don't we? And what does religion do? Separates people, Causes war/s, Manipulates the masses, dictates people's lives in ways that make them miserable, Religion lies and exploits the ignorant, weak, and vulnerable. Religion (all and any religions) need to be questioned, scrutinized, criticized, and challenged. I respect NO belief/religion that discriminates people based off something they have no control over such as sexuality, race, nationality, handicap, etc. Religious "freedom" infringes on my civil and human Rights!

  44. where i live, the discussion has started to abolish 'religious freedom' as a legal concept.
    first: it's a legal nightmare and practically impossible to define what qualifies as a religion' and what not. (without infringing directly on personal liberties)
    second: all the liberties a person (or organisation) need and can demand are already granted by our democratic laws (worldwide by 'declaration of human rights'). religious people aren't more free as other people.

  45. Many people just do not understand that there are limits to each freedom we have, such as religious freedom and freedom of speech for example. Let's take freedom of speech first. While we are free to pretty much say what we want, that freedom is also tempered by civil and legal laws as well. example you cannot stand in front of someone and deliberately, intrusively, knowingly insult, degrade, and demean someone, make threats of bodily harm or threaten to kill them or even yell fire in a movie theater as a joke without facing possible legal and civil charges and ramifications.     In other words, you can be sued and or put in jail for making threats and or be charged with threats and intimidation and threats to do bodily harm and even possible terroristic threatening.  The same goes for religious freedom, you cannot use that freedom to discriminate, make threats, intimidate or deny rights and privileges on the basis of your religion or religious faith.(That's called religious persecution and threats and intimidation based in religion and is a prosecutable offense in most states)*.  Nor can you use it in an attempt or to even have the appearance of forcing your religion upon others. You also cannot legally use these rights either in part or as a whole to deny someone else's right to follow a different faith than yours or the right to not believe in any religion at all. You may not like it, may not want t believe it, but it is the law regardless and some states are in fact starting to enforce these.       So, try using a little common sense and have a little respect for others if you want the same in return otherwise you could be buying yourself a boatload of unnecessary troubles.

  46. Liberals only focus on so-called Christian discrimination because Christians are generally nice and non-violent. Say the same thing to a muslim baker.. Ya, didn't think so.

  47. Fuck these bible thumptards. They are part of the problem. Those who practice dark age cults should not be protected when they impose their dark age theocracy upon others.

  48. True freedom of religion requires also freedom FROM religion. The Western Secular principle of freedom of religion is of Illuministic ispiration and refers to a personal freedom based on free will thus reversable at any time without any punishment going beyond getting simply disowned by the religious group.
    Moreover it refers to professing the chosen religion by manifesting its rituals in private or worship places, it does not grant illimited freedom of manifesting them in public to the detriment of the freedom of others FROM it.
    Since and as long as Islam does not share our concept of freedom of religion, it shall not benefit from it either, because it is just abusing it. Freedom of religion should only benefit believers of religions allowing… true freedom of religion. It would be all straightened up on behalf of true and personal freedom of religion, by codifying also the founding principle inspiring Secularism to defend it and counterbalance the other: principle of freedom FROM religion, which would also defend Muslims wanting out of Islam or breaching Islamic rituals

  49. Freedom of religion without freedom from it is being abused by Islam to bring back sheer supremacism of religion itself, and used by Islam as iperprotective cover to advance Islam political side

  50. Everything and everybody is discriminated against. Don't fool youself. The LGBT movement has turned me into something I thought I'd never be – a hater. Stop oppressing the natural order of things with your perversions.

  51. Give some respect to people that have a religion and believe in it

    Because im not sure why believeing a religion is a problem and its not like religion is effecting ur every day lives in a NEGATIVE way

  52. Why should religious practice be legally protected at all?
    You can change your religion, you can’t change sexuality or race. Religious practice is objectively immoral, sexuality is not.

  53. u can practice ur religion until it goes against normal law. radical islam can be used but blowing up a plane isnt protected by religious freedom

  54. If it's up to me religious zealots would be prosecuted. Religion as an institution needs to be destroyed. Dumb Americans need to realize that your freedom stops where my begins and vice versa.

  55. Religious freedom? We are Christian Nation that is what we were founded on! One nation under God with liberty and justice for all! Not under Allah not under baal, UNDER GOD! If that doesn't set well with immigrants they should not come here! Immigrants in the past spoke English learned the American way! They did not come here trying to change our nation to fit their desires their sins there beliefs! Vettng it's very very important! But remembering Who We Are what we stand for is also important!

  56. I consider 'religious freedom' to be an oxymoron. You are being granted freedom to subjugate yourself to a predetermined set of dogmas that will take away your ability to think freely. Religion is one worst forms of tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *