A conservative radio host changed my views on freedom of religion

[Vesayen]

We all know no one ever changes their views in politics..... well it just happened.

Like any american hating, patriotic apolytonite I do my best to know the constitution well.


Sometimes you can hear something a hundred times but never really THINK about it....

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.

The supreme court has ruled(I forgot the case) that the 14th amendment basically extends much of the federal responsibilities to the state level.

Now your going to ask where my epiphany came from?


To repeat

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

.

How can we restrict things like nativity scenes on state property when we can not make laws to do so? This SPECIFIC idea never occurred to me and it is so blindingly obvious I don't know how I missed it?

How can we prevent things like nativity scenes(the easiest example) on public property when the legislature, and the state governments can not do anything to stop it?

And for reference, I grew up in suburbia a member of a minority non christian religious group and went to a middle class public schools, I never felt oppressed.

[Dinner]

They're still allowed to freely exercise their religion but the state cannot endorse or support any one religion. Allowing certain religious groups to use state property seems very much like an endorsement of one religion over others.

[Last Conformist]

What's always troubled me about that line is that it apparently rules out illegalizing Aztec-style human sacrifice.

But forbidding nativity displays on public property don't seem like prohibiting the free exercise of religion to me, at least not any more than forbidding the local lowlives from gathering in the Capitol is abriging their right to peaceably assemble.

[chequita guevara]

It dpesn't surprise me a right-wing radio host changed your mind, given the host of right-wing ideas you frequently spew.

In any event, if it were up to Congress (the operative word here), they there would be nativitiy scenes up the butt, cruxifics everywhere, and no one else would be mae to feel included in our Christian state, including many of the wrong kinds of Christians.

As the 14th Amendment applies to the states as well, that merans that state and local legislatures may not make a law allowing religion to use public property to promote their religion.

It is the SCOTUS that has repeatedly enforced the Constitution by striking down any and all laws allowing the misappropriation of public funds and or property for the endorsement of religion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
What's always troubled me about that line is that it apparently rules out illegalizing Aztec-style human sacrifice.

Just because it's a religious practice doesn't mean it can be against the law. Murder is illegal.

Curious though, that churches are exempt from not being allowed to provide minors with alcohol. Mmmmm, communion wine.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Just because it's a religious practice doesn't mean it can be against the law. Murder is illegal.

Curious though, that churches are exempt from not being allowed to provide minors with alcohol. Mmmmm, communion wine.

parents can provide their children with alcohol fine as well..

JM

[chequita guevara]

Depends on the state. In Illinois, that is not true and was not true when I was growing up.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Just because it's a religious practice doesn't mean it can be against the law. Murder is illegal.

If illegalizing religious practice isn't prohibiting it's free exercise, what on earth is?

[chequita guevara]

The practice of murder is illegal for everyone.

Special exemptions were made for American Indians and the use of peyote, but the SCOTUS very narrowly defined the ruling to apply only to them, so Rastas don't get a free pass to smoke up.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The practice of murder is illegal for everyone.

I fail to see how this matters - it's still a prohibition.

[Jon Miller]

andthat was mostly guilt, I think

"we slaughtered them, and stole their land, and now won't let them follw their religion? that is just too much"

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I fail to see how this matters - it's still a prohibition.

It doesn't single out their practice. Everyone is forbidden from commiting human sacrifice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
If illegalizing religious practice isn't prohibiting it's free exercise, what on earth is?

As long as a law is neutral on its face and neutral in application, then those religious groups affected are out of luck. Sure they can engage in free exercise, but they can't ignore the neutral laws of the US.

After all, our courts do NOT engage in testing whether a religious belief is valid (whether people actually believe enough), so if that was an out, I can imagine many people in the mafia to join a Catholic cult where murder is a religious ritual.

No right in the Constitution is 100% protected. Free speech has limits, freedom of association has limits, and free exercise has them as well.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Depends on the state. In Illinois, that is not true and was not true when I was growing up.

If our bill goes through in Vermont, then it will soon become legal to drink with one's parents in that state. Wish us luck.

(or make a donation to help the campaign along: http://www.youthrights.org/donate.shtml)

[chequita guevara]

As long as they are muzzled and on leashes, let children drink to their heart's content.