Criticism of a religion means insult of the religion but in prohibiting the insult of a religion means prohibiting all types of enquiry and evaluation in relating to religion. But if we prohibit criticism we extremely violate the freedom of speech of the
In the Bill of Rights, the first amendment states, “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.” I believe this is the most important to the maintenance of a democratic government. The first line reflects the experience of limitations of people’s belief in Europe. Restrictions on religion was soon realized to cause explosive and tremendous disruption in politics. They created it to ensure that federal government didn’t interfere with people’s different practices in their own individual beliefs. The freedoms of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government and seek redress of grievances proclaim that citizens have the right to call the government to account.
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”(“Should Any Vaccines be Required” 3). The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that, in addition to Congress, state governments cannot pass state laws that interfere with individual religious freedom. If there is a law making vaccination mandatory, it may be unconstitutional. When doctors force people to get vaccinated against their religious beliefs, the doctor could be violating their religious freedom. Also, several religions believe that vaccination goes against their beliefs.
They had connections with other countries and this made the Nazi fear that other countries could stop them from the ruling of the world. Other small things such as refusing to do the Nazi salute. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also refused to participate in war because it was against what they believed in. They believed that if they went to war it would show disobedience to God and Jesus, as well as disprove their love for all others. Jesus taught to love one another as he loved them.
Religion is just an easily controllable/ corruptible system that can affect the people who believes in it. One example is U.S.A. U.S.A separated religion and state so that unethical/ corrupt politicians could not infiltrate it and use it to justify war. If I were to explain it I would say, U.S.A does not allow religious arguments to triumph or make a difference as to whether a certain thing should be done or not. Everything that is decided (such as war) needs to have a valid explanation, not something such as, “God is telling us to fight so we have to fight” or “we are not allowed to fight because that is not the will of God”, these arguments are not accepted by the state as a reason to act. If you put a
It is an absolute prohibition in Islam to picture Muhammad, or any of the other prophets of Islam as pictures are thought to encourage the worship of idols. To illustrate the point behind their argument, Muslims point to the following verse in the Qu’ran, "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'" Yet there's no ruling in the Qu’ran explicitly forbidding the depiction of the Prophet, according to Prof Mona Siddiqui from Edinburgh University.
"The U.S. government should not be allowed to monitor or regulate internet content at any level except for when there is a clear threat to the safety of the country or her people. There are many reasons to oppose government monitoring of the internet, but three main reasons stick out amongst the rest. One is the fact that monitoring of the internet is without a doubt invasion of privacy. Additionally, blocking parts of the internet because of its content is censorship, even if the content is hateful or disturbing. Finally, plain text on the internet lacks an essential part of communication, voice inflection.
Boko Haram in English simply means western education is forbidden or non-Islamic education is a sin. This group is active in the northern parts of Nigeria and their main objective is to scrap any education that is not based on Islam in the country. The Boko Haram group believes they are people committed to the propagation of the prophets teaching and are ready to persecute anyone that’s against their belief. The group was formed in the year 2002 in Maiduguri where the local residents of the area named them Boko Haram meaning that western education is forbidden. Boko Haram is not only against western education but also against western culture and modern science as well.
The banning of books also limits the reality of certain individuals. Certain people believe specific books should not be banned in schools or libraries because it interferes with certain people’s freedom. Banning books interferes with the authors freedom rights. Our First Amendment Right states, “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.” (“Your Bill of Rights”). This quote means that any citizen of the United States have the freedom of speech.
Its religious aspects prevent it democracy from taking roots in the country. ‘Ghulam Kibria in his article why Democracy didn’t take Roots’ has very aptly explained as to how Islam and its tenants prevent democracy in Pakistan. He says, “The foremost condition for the growth of democracy is acceptance by all the sovereignty of the people" and this very basic requirement of democracy is quite contrary to the basic ideology of Islam. Islam says "all sovereignty rests in Allah" and any ruler that rules the Ummah rules as "vice-regent of Allah". The Ummah can elect the vice-regent but neither the vice-regent nor the Ummah has right to make laws to govern themselves, the laws have already been 'revealed ' in the holy Koran.” 3 (http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/democracyinpakistan.html).