Does the Constitution Really Say Freedom of Religion?

[Fishking]

Vague reference.....? There was an extermination order against Mormons.

They were also forced to adjust their religion in order to become a state in Utah.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Yes, I referenced something that happened to people who are still alive and also was a very expansive policy implemented by the government as a juxtaposition to some vague reference to claimed government action against Mormons that would either be older or on an an almost irrelevant scale.

Unfortunately, that point went well over your head and I'll again ask for an example.

 

[Paperview]

Thanks for making my point for me.

What the ****?

I don't think you have any idea what you are even talking about.

 

[Paperview]

Thanks for making my point for me.

What the ****?

I don't think you have any idea what you are even talking about.

 

[Fishking]

What the ****?

I don't think you have any idea what you are even talking about.

That it quite obvious. It was obvious when the original point went over your head and then you referenced something that happened before 1900 and beyond. Like I said, keep the time relevant or it just gets specious. Do I get to complain and whine about the Catholic church because they burned Protestants at the stead a few hundred years back or are we going to keep such events somewhat close to modern current time?

 

[Media_Truth]

It always cracks me up when liberals automatically assume someone got their info from FOX News, Glenn Beck, ect from thin air. It's almost as if you have no standing.

You must admit, that most conservatives do. They eat up those FOX News lies.

 

[matchlight]

You are correct that it was the Due Process Clause and not Privileges and Immunities. I guess that's karma for the times that I have chastised others for not making sure they did their research again and just went off of memory. Privileges and Immunities always made more sense for incorporation to me so, since it's been a while since I read the cases, my brain must have assumed that's what it was.

But the fact of incorporation still applies.

I agree that the Pr or I Clause, which seems to have been meant to be the crown jewel of the 14th Amendment, would have made a much better vehicle for incorporation. But after the Slaughter-House cases kneecapped it, the Court regrettably had to turn to the Due Process Clause by default. Justice Thomas wrote a very thorough and interesting analysis of this issue in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, arguing that the Court should have revived the 14th Amendment Pr or I Clause and used it, rather than the Due Process Clause, to incorporate the Second Amendment in McDonald.

As I said, I agree with Thomas and several other earlier justices who have argued that the Court made a gross mistake by ever incorporating the Establishment Clause. In his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, Thomas proposed re-thinking that incorporation as a first step toward straightening out the confused and internally contradictory mess that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is widely acknowledged to have become.

 

[Fishking]

You must admit, that most conservatives do. They eat up those FOX News lies.

I have no idea what most conservative listen to or watch. I'm basically right libertarian, with some conservatism mixed in, and I don't have cable and listen to NPR on the radio but don't really have any particular source.

I find these boards much more informative, so long as there is a good mix of ideology, than leaning on the MSMs. I also have a lot of active liberals on social media that is good as well.

I also don't write off a linked article, no matter the source, for the same reason until I read it for myself. Regardless, making that assumption remains an empty point that only rings of validity to those without intellectual integrity.

 

[Moot]

Thanks for making my point for me.

You still missed the point(s)...

The Japanese internment has nothing to do with this discussion about religion.

Polygamy was LDS doctrine but it's illegal in the US. It was only about three years ago that a Federal judge ruled that some polygamy laws might be unconstitutional.

 

[jamesrage]

The first amendment is a restriction on the government...not the people.

How is government telling people to shut the **** up or lose your tax free status the government not infringing on the right to free speech?

Churches that use the pulpit to preach politics and directly influence legislation and elections could and should lose their tax free status.

I am sure the first left winger or die hard atheist politician to openly propose taking away money from churches in the form of taxes will win lots of supporters.(sarcasm).

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't know where the hardship with this lies.

"A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action."

Obama, 2001:

<snip> "...[G]enerally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf..."

Try this "congress shall make no law..."

"may not be infringed..."

Get it?

Not yet. I was getting close until you mentioned our Constitutional Law Professor POTUS, the same one who voted for immunity for criminal actions by telecom, signed off on Patriot Act extensions, and happily signed off on the NDAA amendments nullifying Habeas. The same Gunslinger notorious for killing innocents from on high. No, I still don't get it. The language seems vague, and the concept specious. I guess if there had been some reference to that specious term at the Convention in 1787 I would understand better.

As it stands now, it appears to be just more Obamaesque sophistry. Sounds nice but means nothing.

 

[Paperview]

Not yet. I was getting close until you mentioned our Constitutional Law Professor POTUS, the same one who voted for immunity for criminal actions by telecom, signed off on Patriot Act extensions, and happily signed off on the NDAA amendments nullifying Habeas. The same Gunslinger notorious for killing innocents from on high. No, I still don't get it. The language seems vague, and the concept specious. I guess if there had been some reference to that specious term at the Convention in 1787 I would understand better.

As it stands now, it appears to be just more Obamaesque sophistry. Sounds nice but means nothing.

?? Because Obama articulated it in an easier to understand form, you dismiss it? You think "congress shall make no law..."

"may not be infringed..." is just "specious," when those are living examples of negative liberties?

<smh>

 

[Media_Truth]

Christian Coalition Voter's Guide. The 2000 version of this was put on all the cars in the parking lot of a megachurch that my wife and I attended. This was 16 years ago, and if anything, these efforts have been accelerated. I wonder what the Conservatives would do if the Left created their own voter's guides, and started putting them on cars in church parking lots? Lawsuit time?

 

[Master PO]

Christian Coalition Voter's Guide. The 2000 version of this was put on all the cars in the parking lot of a megachurch that my wife and I attended. This was 16 years ago, and if anything, these efforts have been accelerated. I wonder what the Conservatives would do if the Left created their own voter's guides, and started putting them on cars in church parking lots? Lawsuit time?

well first of all you were in a church parking lot, meaning you are on their property and the church probability gave the OK to put the Christian Coalition Voter's Guide on your car since you are on their property.

the left is free to make any vote guide they wish, however they dont have the right to enter private property of a church and put things on vehicles.

 

[pinqy]

Christian Coalition Voter's Guide. The 2000 version of this was put on all the cars in the parking lot of a megachurch that my wife and I attended. This was 16 years ago, and if anything, these efforts have been accelerated. I wonder what the Conservatives would do if the Left created their own voter's guides, and started putting them on cars in church parking lots? Lawsuit time?

The Christian Coalition is a 501(c)(4) organization and is allowed to campaign and advocate (as long as that's not their main focus).

Additionally, churches CAN speak out on the issues, and encourage members to vote in accordance with church teachings on the issues, as long as they don't specifically name candidates. A famous example of this was in the 1984 election when Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York, publicly stated that no Catholic could, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who expressly supported abortion. Everyone knew he was talking about Geraldine Ferraro, and he did receive some criticism, but it didn't technically cross the line.

 

[Moot]

How is government telling people to shut the **** up or lose your tax free status the government not infringing on the right to free speech?


I am sure the first left winger or die hard atheist politician to openly propose taking away money from churches in the form of taxes will win lots of supporters.(sarcasm).

Good question....why do churches get tax exempt status?

"...There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court...

..The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion...."

Why don&apos;t churches pay taxes? - LA Times​

 

[Media_Truth]

well first of all you were in a church parking lot, meaning you are on their property and the church probability gave the OK to put the Christian Coalition Voter's Guide on your car since you are on their property.

the left is free to make any vote guide they wish, however they dont have the right to enter private property of a church and put things on vehicles.

Do you think it's OK for the church to arrange to distribute the pamphlets? How about putting Ben Carson on the big screen TV during the worship service? Where is the line actually crossed?

 

[Perotista]

My church showed a film by a group called the Wall-Builders that stated that the intent of the 1st amendment wasn't Freedom of Religion, but Freedom of Conscience. This was in the 2nd last week before the election. They followed that up with a video clip - a plea from Ben Carson for a vote for Republican candidates.

I didn't think Freedom of Religion was questioned in this country. From what I've read, James Madison, who authored the Bill of Rights (the 1st ten amendments), took the exact text from the Virginia Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson was the governor of Virginia. He was a self-professed Deist, and constantly spoke about Freedom of Religion. Jefferson and Madison, both Virginians, were friends for over 50 years.

The exact wording is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prophibiting the free exercise thereof;

The why I understood it was congress or the federal government is prohibited from making any religion or church its national religion or church. The framers had the Church of England in mind where those who didn't even attend could be taxed to support the Church of England. Although the framers left the states alone, each state if they so desired at the time could have a state church or religion. In fact Virginia had their state church until 1846, New Hampshire 1877, North Carolina 1875, South Carolina 1868, New Jersey 1844, New York 1846.

The free exercise thereof also refers to congress or the federal government. A lot of the debate today revolves around the free exercise clause, that and whether the framers mean freedom of religion or freedom from religion which seems to prevail today.

 

[Master PO]

Do you think it's OK for the church to arrange to distribute the pamphlets? How about putting Ben Carson on the big screen TV during the worship service? Where is the line actually crossed?

what i stated had to do with you being on the church's property, when you are on their property they can put things on your car like pamphlets.

 

[prometeus]

A simple answer is a positive right is a man-made civil right that protects an individual or a group and a negative right is God given right prohibiting government infringemen: "Congress shall make no law...."

So, if one is an atheist one does not have those rights, or where in scripture are all the God given rights enumerated and which holy text should one use for that list? Further more, why is it that through history others have not recognized those God given rights?

 

[prometeus]

Why not?

Can you cite any passage from scripture where Christ talked about politics or encouraged His disciples in any political activity?

 

[Tennyson]

That seems more confusing than elucidating. Adding 'positive' and 'negative' to the word right seems odd, and I don't recall having ever heard that term.

Neither you nor Paperview nor Countryboy have explained this specious idea, but you have all clouded the situation a bit.

I do not understand why you are engaging me with your condescending rhetoric regarding rudimentary positive and negative rights (unalienable and civil rights) if you have never heard of the terms.

 

[Tennyson]

So, if one is an atheist one does not have those rights, or where in scripture are all the God given rights enumerated and which holy text should one use for that list? Further more, why is it that through history others have not recognized those God given rights?

Why would the doctrines of positive and negative rights be in scripture? Why would these rights, other than an atheist not having standing in the religious clauses of the First Amendment, not protect atheists?

Unalienable rights, or the laws of nature derived from God, can be traced to the Stoics and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and throughout the ensuing history.

 

[Fishking]

Can you cite any passage from scripture where Christ talked about politics or encouraged His disciples in any political activity?

Not sure what your point is but Paul definitely got involved.

 

[Masterhawk]

It doesn't mention the phrase "freedom of religion" but there is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause which place it in there

 

[Media_Truth]

Can you cite any passage from scripture where Christ talked about politics or encouraged His disciples in any political activity?

I agree. Actually, Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Most biblical scholars say that this is a reference to obey the laws of government. He actually spent more time criticizing the clergy for their self-righteousness. The Wall-Builder's would seemingly fall into that category.