Originally posted by Roy
View Post
They exist just as much to protect people who do not practice a particular religion from interference with their lack of practicing.
I would say that the freedom to practice a religion is guaranteed by the constitution and takes precedence. So, for example, a person is not guaranteed the right never to be in the presence of someone practicing their religion. The guarantee is for those that practice a religion to be able to freely practice it. However, the constitution does guarantee that the State can't pick an official religion, or do anything what would effectively establish a state religion. So, for example, freedom to practice a religion gives one the right to pray over a meal in public, but it does not give someone else the right to demand they stop praying. So if an atheist is offended by a fellow praying over a meal in public, or a Christian is offended by a Muslim praying to Allah, they just has to get over it. My freedom not to pray to Allah, or your freedom not to pray to any God can't be used as a pretext to stop another person from doing just that.
In the general case, it is often a simple truth that rights guaranteed by the constitution can be in conflict. Where the only resolution is to prefer one right over the other. And deciding which right takes precedence is often non-trivial and contentious.
Jim
Comment