Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

No, those are all individual wants. Churches are mere groups of these individuals that share these common interests.

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by jfuh

Please re-read the OP specifically to this link
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/NixonOpinion.pdf

Originally Posted by jfuh

According to the Supreme court, hate speech is not constitutionally protected free speech.
Yet it seems that all one needs to do is to claim that it is their religion and it gets a green light and get out of jail free card. Even with such a disgusting claim as \"Homosexuality is a sin,Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!\"

Originally Posted by jfuh

The hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine is quite illegal. But then as long as it\'s part of your religious belief - no problem get as high as you want to as long as you believe that it enhances your understanding of god the supreme court will protect your use of such a drug.
Yet marijuana which does have scientifically proven medicinal properties of easing pain for patients remains illegal.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Want to censor the press over what it prints? No problem play the hurt religious card over a few cartoons and they won\'t ever print anything about how violent you are ever again.

Originally Posted by Mach

I beleive the problem is this.

The age of enlightenment took us from barbarism, to modern cultures.

However, the drastic change requried and still requires an ongoing compromise. The U.S constitution, had it been soley in the hands of certain founding fathers and didn't need broad appeal, would have been I believe, a lot more unforgiving of religious nonsense. They had to, and still apparently have to, compromise on this, and let the peasants have their religious beliefs and happily deny reality, so that some form of society can be held together. We didn't really have a choice between "a purely reasonable form of government vs what we have", we had a choice between no government, or a compromise government (at least from that perspective we had no other choice).

Compromise always involves giving something up on both sides, and this is precisely the cause of what you see today in your OP. Maybe from here, we can now move forward to the next step that is closer still to purely reasoned, and maybe we'll then see another great leap forward in human prosperity and freedom (as we did with the intial adoptation of reason into our way of life).

The other thing that starts to surface more is th systematic application of reason to ethics. If it continues to be that we can identify reasonably, certain things as broadly ethical and unethical, eventually that means a clash between individual freedom, and ethics. Actualy this goes on non-stop as it is, but it will become a bigger issue the further that reason takes us. For instance, if it's demonstrably true (given XYZ) that guns lead to more crime/deaths, then it will always be a clash between the individual and the ethic and it's probably always going to be a compromise there as well.

In the end, unless humans change themselves physiologically (like gene maniupation), or chemically (like we all take drugs to make us less animalistic), we may not be able to overcome or basic animal brains to embrace reason more fully as a culture. We may need to create AI's who will have no such weakness and who will become our beneavolent benefactors, in that way, we may never become the perfect beings we strive to be, but we may be able to create them and they may rightfully pity us,and take care of us.

-Mach

Originally Posted by BillyBob

Churches are untouchable. Not only does the first amendment stop the government from interferring with them, they have God's backing. And God's backing is greater than that of any man.

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

yea, so? The court did what they were supposed to, protect free speech and expression. In the meantime, churches can still protest their concernes as well.

Originally Posted by jb_1430

You didnt read the case. had nothing to do with religion and no one made any such claim. Quite a stretch to consider the above as \"hate speech\"

Originally Posted by jb_1430

Constitution of the US prohibits Congress from enacting any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nothing that prevents them from enacting laws that deny the free exercise of coping a buzz.

Originally Posted by jb_1430

Oh come on. You know they could of made it a picture of J. Christ himself covered in animal feces and the press wouldnt of had a problem at all.

Originally Posted by Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

You were made up by a liberal poster to smear your own kind, right? You can't be real- walking stereotypes don't exist.

On the issue- I don't see what the problems are. Treat religion like a club- Boys+Girls, YMCA, whatever- take away the tax exemptions, persecute those who purchase and sell illegal drugs, and you aren't defeating the right to practice religion. Someone smoking a joint in DC to protest drug laws would be arrested- why not someone in church?

Hate speech laws, however, unless stopping people from inciting violence, are silly and unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Actually it had everything to do with religion I suggest you read the case, the plantifs argued not on freedom of speech but that it was their religion and hence it was a freedom of religion to be hateful. .