[daniel1212]

Any attempt by another citizen, to cajole, address, emphasize or examine, with the desired outcome being to gather that individual into another form of worship, foreign to his own, is trampling upon that person’s freedom.

So you never attempt to influence another citizen to examine their beliefs and persuade them to aligns with yours - including that no citizen should ever attempt to influence another citizen to examine their beliefs and persuade them to aligns with theirs? Just what do you engage in on FR?

Or is this only restricted to religion and the free exercise thereof?

And that is your definition of freedom?

Truth is exclusive by nature, and one cannot contend for any Truth without opposing conflicting ones.

[Terry L Smith]

para1 stsnds.

para2 no, my business here is open comment, whether ‘good’ ot ‘bad’, depending on the subjecI hold a Jeffersonian idea on religion.

para3 no

In my fits of sanity, the definition I have supplied, will have to do.

Truth, a la Sherlock Holmes, whatever is probable, minus the impossible, will lead to the truth.

Now, Judaism squabbles aming all the rabbis, all the orthodox, reformed, and Russian rabbis in the talmud.
Christianity squabbles between the catholics and protestants, unto wars, then came yhe other breakaways, to where the pentecostsls call episcopalians gods frozen children. mohammeds are not worth believing because of their violent schisms.
The various Asian religions are not of conversions but of signposts how to live in this world.

I am just a 71 year old man, who had a boatload of confusions, troubles, and violent anger. Confusions have become understood. Troubles have become medical maladies, any of which could pull the plug. Anger has been corraled, and I am still learning.