A conservative radio host changed my views on freedom of religion

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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

So forbidding everyone from eating bread and drinking wine would be fine?

[OzzyKP]

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

[Theben]

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

And shock collars. Can't forget those.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So forbidding everyone from eating bread and drinking wine would be fine?

Well yes. Since eating bread and drinking wine isn't exclusive to Catholics (and so many people do it), it can't really be said that the law is targeting them. It's neutral on its face and application.

However, banning wine would violate the 21st Amendment .

[Last Conformist]

OK. IOW, the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't stop Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and they're perfectly in their rights to ban nativity scenes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
OK. IOW, the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't stop Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and they're perfectly in their rights to ban nativity scenes.

You are forgetting that whole establishment clause thing . And how is prohibiting nativity scenes on state property violating the free exercise of religion? After all, that isn't any individual's property, but the property of the government.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
OK. IOW, the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" doesn't stop Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and they're perfectly in their rights to ban nativity scenes.

Imran's right. There is no ban on nativity scenes. Anyone can put them on their own property.

The question you're concerned with is whether government may place nativity scenes on its property. Well, it is not permitted to take this step because it would be a state-endorsement of religion. In the US, a govenmental entity may not expouse a religion nor may it express a preference of a particular religion or group of religions.

[Elok]

I'm surprised no Conservative has picked up on the fact that "Congress shall make no law..." Technically, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent Bush from issuing an executive order forcing all Muslims in the U.S. to face the Capitol instead of Mecca when they pray. It would allow Congress to pass a law counteracting that order, since such a law would not be "prohibiting," but if the Prez wanted to make Aztec blood sacrifice legal Congress would be prevented from stopping it by the First Amendment...

Or you could just read the document flexibly as: "Government stays out of religion altogether," instead of splitting hairs over precise phrasings. (But then, where's the fun in that?)

[Dracon II]

that churches are exempt from not being allowed to provide minors with alcohol

So it's perfectly legal for a catholic priest to get a young boy drunk?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

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

Not sure how they draw the line but there was a "religion" where men were supposed to pay the high priestess to have sex with her. The Fed's called it prostitution and the high Priestess and her "followers" ended up in jail.

[Berzerker]

LC

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

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

You've mis-interpreted the word "free" to mean anything goes, freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Therefore the exercise of religious freedom cannot create coercion or constraints on choice or action. Murder is a constraint on choice or action disqualifying it as an act of freedom.

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

A prohibition on murder does not violate anyone's freedom since murder cannot exist in a state of freedom. Once murder exists, freedom does not.

Imran

No right in the Constitution is 100% protected.

Where does the Constitution say that?

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.

Congress shall make no law does not mean Congress shall make neutral laws. This neutrality nonsense is a loophole invented by the court.

Elok

I'm surprised no Conservative has picked up on the fact that "Congress shall make no law..." Technically, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent Bush from issuing an executive order forcing all Muslims in the U.S. to face the Capitol instead of Mecca when they pray.

The Constitution gives the Prez powers, there aint no such power.

As for the establishment clause, I dont think a mere endorsement establishes religion. But its also clear they didn't like religions using government to raise money from people. Taxes for religious stuff, i.e., c ompelling me to financially support someone else's religion, goes too far. But if some people got together and set up their own nativity scene, fine. The establishment clause cannot be construed to limit or ban our use of our own land for religious purposes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Imran's right. There is no ban on nativity scenes. Anyone can put them on their own property.

heh. I don't know why but this exchange reminded me of this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...nal/TopStories

[Last Conformist]

I think America should get a new constitution rather than redefining language.

[Elok]

The President can give executive orders which have the force of law. I'm not sure the Constitution could be used to license my specific example, but the President is not restrained by the First Amendment in any way, it appears.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Therefore the exercise of religious freedom cannot create coercion or constraints on choice or action. Murder is a constraint on choice or action disqualifying it as an act of freedom.

Many human sacrificies were willing victims (though certainly not the Aztecs' victims). To be sent to serve God is a great honor.