Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
When the case EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH, was decided, the Supreme Court upheld the legal principle that religious belief doesn't trump all laws of general applicability and that the whilst the right religious belief is 100% protected, the right to religious practice is not.
Quote:
To say that a person's right to free exercise has been burdened, of course, does not mean that he has an absolute right to engage in the conduct. Under our established First Amendment jurisprudence, we have recognized that the freedom to act, unlike the freedom to believe, cannot be absolute.
So, all that lament that creches and nativity scenes are not allowed in public places, quit using the First Amendment as your reason.
The Supreme Court decision upheld that a state or law could not specifically ban a religious practice, but that a state law could ban an act in general which may be used in a religious practice. In this situation, the use of a controlled substance.
Or that the free exercise clause did not give someone the right or ability to not obey a generally applicable law.
Not sure how applicable I would get with this towards a nativity scene in a public place. The application of this precedence would depend on whether the law, and the act of putting up the nativity scene fit similar circumstances. (ie, the law first would need to be generally applicable).
Correct, apples compared to oranges. The only problem with public display of nativity scenes is when government property is used for the display. If there is any justification for doing so, it is because of the community, historical and/or social values, not the practice of religion.
Employment Division vs Smith wasn't even about a creche.It was about a state prohibiting the use of peyote as part of a religious ritual. How did you extrapolate a creche from that when it wasn't even mentioned?
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S.872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DauntlessDan
Employment Division vs Smith wasn't even about a creche.It was about a state prohibiting the use of peyote as part of a religious ritual. How did you extrapolate a creche from that when it wasn't even mentioned?
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S.872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.
Although it IS true that the case was brought to the Supreme Court because of the use of peyote, that part is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the bolded part. The right to believe is guaranteed, the right to PRACTICE is not. If your religion believes that human sacrifice is needed to fulfill all tenets of your religion, the laws of general application would prohibit you from practicing that believe.
In other words, you can believe what you want, and you have the right, but you do not have the right to practice what you want.
In other words, you can believe what you want, and you have the right, but you do not have the right to practice what you want.
Agreed ... and it is the failure of many Christians to understand this concept that causes so many issues with atheists and Christians being at odds with each other.
The Bill of Rights enumerates general principles, but it has always been understood that none of them are absolutes.
If freedom of speech was absolute, then there could be no copyright laws, no libel lawsuits, nor any treasonous speech.
If religious freedom was absolute, then we could not disarm the Branch Davidians, could not save the lives of children whose parents refuse life saving procedures on religious grounds, and could not prosecute any preachers for criminal fraud associated with their fund raising practices.
If the right to bare arms was absolute, municipalities could not bar people from walking about openly armed, states could not regulate the sale of firearms.
If the right to vote was absolute, it could not be denied to anyone regardless of age, infirmity, or incarceration in a penitentiary.
All of this has long been understood and accepted before 1989 and EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
