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.
First Amendment. Not in those exact words of course, but the exact words do not matter. The rights are there, and have been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean government...all levels of government, cannot establish a religion.
You know this, or at least you should. You simply choose to be obtuse because you do not agree with it, because you want your specific religion to dominate.
So do the rights in the rest of the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens the same way?
And lets be fair. Can we? Are you able to read with comprehension? I've repeatedly said that a state has a right to have whatever religion they want. It can be Islam, if they want. It's not about my religion.
So do the rights in the rest of the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens the same way?
And lets be fair. Can we? Are you able to read with comprehension? I've repeatedly said that a state has a right to have whatever religion they want. It can be Islam, if they want. It's not about my religion.
Ideally, they should. As you disagree with some Supreme Court rulings, I do as well, so I am sure we could debate a few things.
Before you start talking about your religious right to discriminate based upon your faith, lets remember there are other laws regarding anti-discrimination that also apply. All rights are a relative balance between competing interests.
Addressing your point about establishing a religion, just no. It is clear as day that the government, and by extension the states, which are covered by the constitution per the 14th amendment and Supreme Court decisions, CANNOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION.
Last edited by fishbrains; 08-21-2019 at 09:31 PM..
Reason: Edited to include BF's edit in quote.
Ideally, they should. As you disagree with some Supreme Court rulings, I do as well, so I am sure we could debate a few things.
Before you start talking about your religious right to discriminate based upon your faith, lets remember there are other laws regarding anti-discrimination that also apply. All rights are a relative balance between competing interests.
You're way off in left field talking about stuff that isn't even in the conversation.
Now...if you are saying that a state cannot make a law regarding any sort of religious restriction, do you believe a state can pass a law regarding any restriction of other Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
You're way off in left field talking about stuff that isn't even in the conversation.
Do you mind me pointing out the irony in this statement? You are the one who keeps pulling in things like tattoos when Arleigh wants to discriminate in employment hiring on the basis of religion. Now you are bitter because I tried to anticipate your thoughts? If you want to be fair, then lets be fair in all things.
Quote:
Now...if you are saying that a state cannot make a law regarding any sort of religious restriction, do you believe a state can pass a law regarding any restriction of other Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
I did not say that a state cannot make a law regarding any sort of religious restriction. I don't believe that at all.
I said that a state cannot establish a religion. Very, very different. As an example, if a follower of a death cult has a sincere belief that they are allowed to kill a neighbor on a religious holiday, the state has an interest in restricting this action, as it infringes upon a different right.
This has also been upheld a number of times. I believe that Native American religions that view the ingestion of peyote as a religious sacrament do not override drug laws.
Since you seem to be in a mood to ask questions, and I have answered, maybe you could do me the same courtesy. Upthread I asked you this, but received no reply. How about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Really?
What are your thoughts on institutional prayer in schools? Abortion? Military chaplains? Parsonage exemptions? 501c3 tax reporting requirements? “In God We Trust” mottos? 10 Commandments monuments? Same sex marriage?
Sure, some of these things do not rise all the way to persecution, unless you define persecution the way Jeffbase does. In that case, each of these examples is persecution.
Sure they are. They have all sorts of laws that restrict constitutional rights. If you think hard enough, I'm sure you can figure out which one that is restricted I'm specifically thinking of. I'd hate to spell it out for you, as you'd probably get all whiny about it.
That sounded like Theist meaning. when translated into English: "I don't want to say as you'd show I was wrong. I'll just pretend that it's 'Obvious' and hope to get away with that.".
No - you made the claim. I couldn't see it. Mensa said that you were wrong. You either back up your assertion or you get shown up very badly - and the religion that you profess, by association.
So do the rights in the rest of the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens the same way?
And lets be fair. Can we? Are you able to read with comprehension? I've repeatedly said that a state has a right to have whatever religion they want. It can be Islam, if they want. It's not about my religion.
What's all this? A state cannot legislate for a state church can it? It can become predominantly Islamic if the people convert. If they set up a State Muslim council to declare that the legitimate religion of the state that would violate the constitution, wouldn't it? And that certainly applies to Christian privilege in any state (or a lot of them) under the constitution which (as was pointed out) has been understood in a particular way, consistently by the people who specialise in that stuff, whether they are Christians or not.
Nothing that you have said above seems to mean anything coherent.
So do the rights in the rest of the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens the same way?
Yes. That's what the due process clause of the 14th Amendment means, as confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Quote:
And lets be fair. Can we? Are you able to read with comprehension? I've repeatedly said that a state has a right to have whatever religion they want. It can be Islam, if they want. It's not about my religion.
No, states cannot establish an official religion. Period. You are simply wrong about that.
You're way off in left field talking about stuff that isn't even in the conversation.
Now...if you are saying that a state cannot make a law regarding any sort of religious restriction, do you believe a state can pass a law regarding any restriction of other Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
Yes, all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights come with limits. There are laws regulating the activities appropriate for churches. We have the right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, but we might need to get a parade permit. We have rights about search and seizure, but there are laws regarding law enforcement obtaining warrants to conduct searches. We have freedom of speech, but we also have libel and slander laws, as well as laws about inciting people to do illegal acts. The list goes one and on. All rights come with limits.
So, no, nobody is saying a state cannot make a law regarding any sort of religious restriction. Some restrictions do exist.
And, while we're at it, yes, sometimes the courts have to intervene and stop things when the government tries to enact laws that go too far in restricting rights.
What's all this? A state cannot legislate for a state church can it? It can become predominantly Islamic if the people convert. If they set up a State Muslim council to declare that the legitimate religion of the state that would violate the constitution, wouldn't it? And that certainly applies to Christian privilege in any state (or a lot of them) under the constitution which (as was pointed out) has been understood in a particular way, consistently by the people who specialise in that stuff, whether they are Christians or not.
Nothing that you have said above seems to mean anything coherent.
9 of the original 13 states had official state religions. They CLEARLY felt that a state could do such a thing.
If you don't like what Rhode Island does, move to Massachussetts, or Illinois, or Idaho. That was their intent.
Later on, the SCOTUS interpreted the 14th Amendment incorrectly to rule that a state could not do that. Having said that, they only seem to apply it in terms of things like religion. They ignore obvious applications on other Amendments, where Congress is explicitly forbidden to make a law about.
9 of the original 13 states had official state religions. They CLEARLY felt that a state could do such a thing.
If you don't like what Rhode Island does, move to Massachussetts, or Illinois, or Idaho. That was their intent.
Later on, the SCOTUS interpreted the 14th Amendment incorrectly to rule that a state could not do that. Having said that, they only seem to apply it in terms of things like religion. They ignore obvious applications on other Amendments, where Congress is explicitly forbidden to make a law about.
Well, using your logic, I guess you'll just have to accept American law today or move to another country. And no American should ever need to do that.
But to use your logic again, may I assume that if your state decided to adopt Islam as it's official religion, you'd be fine with that?
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.
