• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Constitution Really Say Freedom of Religion?

countryboy said:
I see, so if I call myself King, that makes it so? Sweet! Bow down before the greatness that is me. :allhail
Click to expand...


Likewise, we can call you whatever we want, too....brother.
 
Fishking said:
Could you show me what clause in the Constitution that says that you lose freedom of religion if you talk about politics?
Click to expand...


The first amendment is a restriction on the government...not the people. Therefore, it protects religion from government....and protects government from religion....hence the "wall of separation."

You're free to practice and believe any religion you like...but you're not free to force your religion on the government or to use the government to force your religion on the people.


Mormons love the first amendment simply because it protects their religion from the federal government....and other religions.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
The first amendment is a restriction on the government...not the people. Therefore, it protects religion from government....
Click to expand...

This part is correct.

and protects government from religion....hence the "wall of separation."
Click to expand...

This part isn't. There's nothing that prohibits religious groups or people from participating in the government process.

You're free to practice and believe any religion you like...but you're not free to force your religion on the government or to use the government to force your religion on the people.
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of anyone attempting to forcibly convert people via government force.

Mormons love the first amendment simply because it protects their religion from the federal government....and other religions.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why it's there.
 
jamesrage said:
Still does not change what I said.Church's have the constitutional right to say what ever they want and any good preacher,minister, Rabi or what ever religious leader has the duty to inform their congregation/members the moral choices they should be making including which voting for which politicians whose morals closely match theirs.
Click to expand...


The first amendment is a restriction on the government...not the people. Churches that use the pulpit to preach politics and directly influence legislation and elections could and should lose their tax free status.
 
Fishking said:
This part is correct.



This part isn't. There's nothing that prohibits religious groups or people from participating in the government process.
Click to expand...
As individuals they are free to participate in the government...but not as an organized church or religion.



I'm unaware of anyone attempting to forcibly convert people via government force.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could thank the First Amendment for that. But there was a time when the government tried to forcibly destroy the Mormons.
 
Moot said:
As individuals they are free to participate in the government...but not as an organized church or religion.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution say that? As long as they are peaceful, they have the freedom to assemble and petition the government, just like anyone else. I don't see anywhere where it says if you do one right it invalidates the other.

I suppose you could thank the First Amendment for that. But there was a time when the government tried to forcibly destroy the Mormons.
Click to expand...

And there were times where Japanese Americans were interred in camps, and there are people still alive when that happened. By and large, this doesn't happen.
 
Tennyson said:
Churches do not need to apply with the IRS to be tax exempt. Why would the IRS have a procedure for a an organization that is automatically tax exempt without any application? Moreover, a 501 (c)(3) is not an IRS requirement for any non-religious organization to be tax exempt as they can be tax exempt without being a 501(c)(3).
Click to expand...

Churches are only exempt because they are allegedly not non-profit organizations.
 
Fishking said:
Where does the Constitution say that? As long as they are peaceful, they have the freedom to assemble and petition the government, just like anyone else. I don't see anywhere where it says if you do one right it invalidates the other.
Click to expand...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The first amendment restricts the government from passing laws that favor organized religions. It doesn't restrict the "free exercise" of the people from practicing their religion....unless they try to make their religion the law.


And there were times where Japanese Americans were interred in camps, and there are people still alive when that happened. By and large, this doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur? The Japanese weren't interred or persecuted because of their religion. But the Mormons were...and still are if you read Countryboy's post.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Its the duty of any good religious leader to inform his or her congregation/members what moral choices their members should be making including picking politicians who are moral. I know leftist and die hard atheists believe that when you go vote that you are supposed to tell what ever god you believe in to go **** him or herself that you are going to vote however you want regardless if the candidate contradicts those religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

"Churches that endorse candidates or engage in political activity can lose their exempt status."

Forbes Welcome
 
Moot said:
Churches are only exempt because they are allegedly not non-profit organizations.
Click to expand...

Churches are exempt because they have been exempt since Constantine. The colonies and the U.S. after the ratification of the Bill of Rights continued the English legal principle of churches being tax exempt from the English Statute Charitable Uses under Statute of Elizabeth I in 1601. Profit or no profit does not play into the equation and never has.
 
Moot said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The first amendment restricts the government from passing laws that favor organized religions. It doesn't restrict the "free exercise" of the people from practicing their religion....unless they try to make their religion the law.


Non sequitur? The Japanese weren't interred or persecuted because of their religion. But the Mormons were...and still are if you read Countryboy's post.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws that favor one Protestant religion over another, which would prevent a national religion scenario that England had with the Church of England.
 
countryboy said:
That's not at all what the First Amendment says. It simply prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It says this clearly, and unambiguously using that actual wording. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ". It goes on to say the free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited. it mentions nothing about schools, or government property. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

If Congress may pass no law regarding the establishment of religion, and if it must guarantee one's right to practice religion, isn't that the functional equivalent of saying Congress must remain neutral on religious matters, within those 2 obligations?
 
Tennyson said:
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...."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I read through that, but it seems specious to me. It talks about obliging, but it does not say which party is obliged.

Might you elaborate on how the BOR is negative rights? Who is obliged to do what, and by whom?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Moot said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The first amendment restricts the government from passing laws that favor organized religions. It doesn't restrict the "free exercise" of the people from practicing their religion....unless they try to make their religion the law.
Click to expand...

No...it means they can't pass laws regarding a religious establishment, favorable or non-favorable. It's why they are tax-exempt, because taxes are laws. A church need not file 501 status. That aside, you left out the point I was making. They are not prohibited from participating in the political process. That doesn't mean establishing their religion as a state, enforced religion, but that they can support candidates or policies they agree with.

Non sequitur? The Japanese weren't interred or persecuted because of their religion. But the Mormons were...and still are if you read Countryboy's post.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that there are examples where persecution exists outside of religious motivations. There is no substantial push to make a state enforced religion. That's just not a thing and a strawman. We're talking about religious establishments simply being involved in the political process. As far as Mormons...I'm unaware of any laws being passed that targets them, are you?
 
Fishking said:
No...it means they can't pass laws regarding a religious establishment, favorable or non-favorable. It's why they are tax-exempt, because taxes are laws. A church need not file 501 status. That aside, you left out the point I was making. They are not prohibited from participating in the political process. That doesn't mean establishing their religion as a state, enforced religion, but that they can support candidates or policies they agree with.



Just pointing out that there are examples where persecution exists outside of religious motivations. There is no substantial push to make a state enforced religion. That's just not a thing and a strawman. We're talking about religious establishments simply being involved in the political process. As far as Mormons...I'm unaware of any laws being passed that targets them, are you?
Click to expand...

There were, which is what Moot said...
 
matchlight said:
Really? Please tell us by whom the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "has consistently been interpreted as meaning" what you claim. In 1873, only five years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court interpreted that clause so narrowly in the Slaughter-House Cases as practically to read it out of existence. It has been pretty much a dead letter ever since.

It is another part of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, that the Supreme Court has relied on to incorporate various parts of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states. .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tennyson said:
Churches do not need to apply with the IRS to be tax exempt.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they did. But 501(c)(3) is still the governing rule. They don't have to file but it's still 501(c)(3) Non-churches, including some religious organizations do have to file to be tax exempt. There are of course other categories, but I'm not aware of any non-church that doesn't have to file.
 
Fishking said:
Nope. Their source for exemption from taxes is the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

What are taxes?
Click to expand...

Are you saying churches are exempt from all generally applicable laws, such as zoning laws, building safety and fire laws? No.

The Establishment clause does not mean churches are outside the law.
 
pinqy said:
Are you saying churches are exempt from all generally applicable laws, such as zoning laws, building safety and fire laws? No.

The Establishment clause does not mean churches are outside the law.
Click to expand...

Well, words and stuff disagrees with you.
 
Paperview said:
There were, which is what Moot said...
Click to expand...

Examples? I mean, not ones that are so old they are irrelevant or this is going to get tedious.
 
Fishking said:
Examples? I mean, not ones that are so old they are irrelevant or this is going to get tedious.
Click to expand...

This ^ from the guy who said a few posts ago

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Fishking
And there were times where Japanese Americans were interred in camps..."

Which had nothing to do with their religion...but boy howdy, don't you dare bring up what happened decades earlier to a religion that was targeted against practicing their religion...
 
Paperview said:
This ^ from the guy who said a few posts ago

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Fishking
And there were times where Japanese Americans were interred in camps..."

Which had nothing to do with their religion...but boy howdy, don't you dare bring up what happened decades earlier to a religion that was targeted against practicing their religion...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fishking said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom