A conservative radio host changed my views on freedom of religion

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by 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.

The President, as head of the Executive Branch, can issue executive orders directing how his employees operate. He cannot issue executive orders commanding the rest of it. That takes a law (or at minimum, a regulation).

[Berzerker]

the President is not restrained by the First Amendment in any way, it appears.

The President doesn't have legislative powers

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

Actually the Aztecs did practice "voluntary" sacrifices too, but human sacrifices occured in theocratic regimes lacking in religious freedom. If I want to be a human sacrifice because of my religion, so be it.

The President, as head of the Executive Branch, can issue executive orders directing how his employees operate. He cannot issue executive orders commanding the rest of it. That takes a law (or at minimum, a regulation).

Yup

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Where does the Constitution say that?

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

There's Libertarian "logic" for ya.

[Zkribbler]

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

Nothing else is workable.

For example, a central belief of the Church of the Most High Zkribbler is that Zkribbler must be the Head of State of any nation in which he resides. Any law -- no matter how neutral -- preventing me from carring out this central belief is an infringment of my religion and therefore must be struck down as unconstitutional.

[Berzerker]

Odin, what is illogical about it? What part of "shall make no law" is so difficult?

It aint workable because politicians dont want the Constitution getting in the way. It was "workeable" for a long time before the SCOTUS decided the 1st Amendment actually says Congress can pass "neutral" laws that prohibit the religious freedom of...guess who? Minority religions...

As for your example, religious freedom does not mean we have to act on your behalf. You can call yourself HoS but we aren't obliged to treat you like one. Religious freedom means you can build or attend a church, it does not mean we have to show up for sermons. I wonder if this "neutrality" argument could be used to deny freedom of the press. Hey, a neutral law says no one can publish a newspaper. How about free speech? A neutral law says no one can criticise the government. Nah, makes no sense the way you guys are reading it. We're talking about the BoR and those rights can only be infringed by constitutionally authorised powers.

[Urban Ranger]

So Berz, you will be a-okay with people practicing my special brand of religion that calls for believers to fly airliners into skyscrappers.

[KrazyHorse]

How can we restrict things like nativity scenes on state property when we can not make laws to do so?

The laws in place which provide funding to build and maintain a public area are either intended to support a religious belief (i.e. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was born to a virgin mother if we're talking about Nativity scenes) or they're not. If the law was not intended to provide such support then the people administering the public area have subverted a secular law to religious purposes. If the law was intended to provide such support then it is a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and is thus unconstitutional.

No government in the US system can give anybody any money except through exercise of the legislative branch (either directly or indirectly), so any money that flows into supporting a religious tenet has either been misappropriated by somebody at a lower level than the legislature or unconstitutionally appropriated by the legislature.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, it is my understanding that such money could flow into a religious organization as long as it was selected by some secular metric.

[KrazyHorse]

Supporting a religious tenet, not supporting a religious organisation.

If the money goes to promoting the Catholic faith then it shouldn't be allowed. If it goes to supporting a Catholic food bank then the matter becomes foggy...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

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.

There is just such an institution in the U.S., and it's called marriage.

[Berzerker]

UR

So Berz, you will be a-okay with people practicing my special brand of religion that calls for believers to fly airliners into skyscrappers.

Why? I'd love to know how you got that from what I said

As for nativity scenes, they dont violate the establishment clause because no law was made by Congress.