Freedom of Religion... as long as you are Judeo-Christian
Witchcraft Not Welcome
Elected officials don't have the right to determine which religions are legitimate and which are not. The only reason that having these "invocations" are consititutional is because they don't exclude specific religions. When they do, that's unconstitutional. It violates the clause saying "no law respecting an establishment of religion". This establishes Judeo-Christianity.
posted by TheLoneAmigo @ 12:22 pm
43 comments
43 Comments:
*reads the comment from Joe and raises an eyebrow*
I think you started leaving out words near the end there. Something about the Constitution being ratified by having state sponsered churches?
*shrug*
At any rate, nice site amigo. I threw up a link to you on mine. Cheers!
Yeah, okay, I admit I was wrong about what the consitution said.
But it still clearly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and I have never heard of these state sponsored churchs. But each to their own. You do whatever you want, I'm sure there's enough atheists in the United States (something like 24 million) to go and move to some state and outlaw religion, or at least "Judeo-Christianity".
Thanks for the linky, templar!
Um … no?
All of the Atheists in the United States couldn’t all move to one state and make religion illegal any more than the entire Jewish population could descend on Rhode Island and make the Baptist church illegal. Yes, each state has its own constitution. Yes, each state constitution is a measure by which state and local courts rule on state and local laws. No, the state constitution is not the final measure.
The state constitutions are trumped by the federal constitution, which does apply to state laws. A state can certainly pass any law it wants, but laws can be challenged and if state law runs contrary to federal law it will be nullified. The same thing would happen if a town passed a law that ran contrary to the state law.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the measure by which we judge all of our laws and the founding fathers put the “establishment” clause in the Constitution primarily to protect religion from the state. Not the other way around. A lot of their wariness came from their experiences with the Church of England, and they were worried that any kind of milquetoast “civic religion” would inevitably weaken other religions and thereby threaten religious liberty.
There are actually a couple court cases you both might find interesting. After all, you’re both still in school and obviously interested in U.S. law. The first is the 1971 case “Lemon v. Kurtzman” in which some basic standards involving religious establishment were set. The second case was a 1991/92 case “Lee v. Weisman” in which the Supreme Court agreed that schools are permitted to invite members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at their schools graduation ceremonies.
You can find information about them both (including the various briefs) at http://lp.findlaw.com/
While the Court found that allowing voluntary prayer at a high school graduation didn’t violate the establishment clause, it did uphold that there needs to be a separation between religion and government.
“In the hands of government, what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed.”
-From the majority opinion in “Lee v. Weisman”
As for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that started this whole thread, it’s unfortunate that this happened but I don’t believe that their ruling will last. It will take time, but in five or ten years I’m sure the decision will be appealed under different circumstances. After all, limiting opening prayers to Judeo-Christian monotheism excludes a lot of recognized religions. Sooner or later it will become an issue in a different part of the country, this ruling will be used as an excuse and the court will shoot the whole thing down.
Actually, neither of us are in school, we're both homeschooled...
The thing is, it does violate the spirit of the First Amendment. It establishes Judeo-Chrisitan religion above others, in the circumstances. Any Judeo-Christian can make an invocation at this meeting, but Wiccans, Buddhists, whoever else, can't. Please tell me why they should not be able to? Without saying Chrisitianity is the One True Faith.
Two hundred years of law, legal prescient, social and political changes disagree with you.
So do a civil war (and the 620,000 graves that war left behind).
You are right that the Establishment Clause originally only applied to the federal government, along with the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause. This was because the anti-federalist states wanted to preserve their religious establishments (none of which were single state churches). The Fourteenth Amendment changed that.
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
One of the many results of the Fourteenth Amendment was the addition of the word “incorporated” into our legal parlance. Laws, regulations and constraints at the federal level are incorporated into the individual states.
To put it simply, no state is outside the union. So yes, the Establishment Clause does apply to the states.
This is actually something you should both be paying attention to since you both seem to care about American law. One of the cases the Supreme Court is looking at this term is Cutter v. Wilkinson, which involves the RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). The RLUIPA is the successor to the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1997, in Boerne v. Flores.
(The RLUIPA involves the religious freedom of prisoners. A number of wiccan, Asatru, Satanist, and Christians in Ohio prisons have complained that they have been denied access to religious literature, symbols, ceremonial items, and the ability to gather for group worship. They also claim they are being treated less well than the prisoners professing a more mainstream religion.)
A number of ministers and lobbyists (sometimes one and the same) have latched onto this issue. The idea that the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply to states is very attractive to a number of people in the US, but in all honesty they are just grasping at straws. Two straws, in fact.
The first was the dissenting opinion authored by Clarence Thomas in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. The second was back in February of this year, when the State of Virginia published a legal brief that claimed exactly what Joe is saying.
You can find more information about them on the website I posted earlier.
Um, no, what Abberant Templar is saying is that the Consititution applies at a state level as well as the federal level. The Missouri State Legislature can't legislate against freedom of speech or religion, and neither can the San Francisco City Council. Also, freedom of religion is a liberty.
So by specifically establishing that only believers of Judo-Christian Monotheism can give the opening prayer, the council was not forcing out other faiths?
Ms. Simpson can freely practice her faith, so long as she does it somewhere else?
I would take the time to explain where you’re wrong, but I can see from reading the rest of your post that there’s really no point in bothering.
But with all this talk of "tax dollars", the only question I really have now is “just how old are you two?”
If I may interject...
I had no idea that religious freedom extended to the right of all people to perform religious rituals before a a county board.
Was this a violation of the Establishment Clause? Let's see...
The only thing the board of supervisors did was require that the religious services performed at the meetings conform to the beliefs of the majority of the participants. They have made no law regarding an establishment of religion. They have not prohibited a religion's free exercise. They have instead made a choice about the kinds of religious services THEY choose to attend.
Something that you must understand about the Establishment Clause is that it has no bearing on morality. Morality must be established by the majority in a democracy, or it won't be established at all. In America, the majority of people conform to Judeo-Christian ETHICS, so those ethics are reflected in the laws we create.
We may legislate according to our ethics, but we may not legislate according to our worship. We can't outlaw any religion, and we can't prohibit its adherents from meeting to worship. We can say to a Wiccan "we don't want to hear your invocation," but we can't say "you may not perform invocations." The former is to simply exercise one's right to have the religious services of their liking when on his own territory (same as you probably turn away the Jehovah's Witnesses pretty fast), and the other is to prohibit, or outlaw, a religion.
Please do not confuse ethics and worship. Laws must be made according to ethics, and in a democratic republic, the ethics of the majority are the ethics that will make their way into law. Worship, or the actual act of participating in a religion, may not be prohibited, whether by the majority, or anyone else.
Let's run this through a couple of scenarios...
REGARDING WORSHIP ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
If a Wiccan shows up on my front porch, performing an incantation, I have every right to make him leave. If I pray on his doorstep, he can make me leave. This is because, though there is no law regarding our respective manners of worship, we must respect the wishes of the property owner regarding worship.
REGARDING WORSHIP IN PUBLIC
If I were to go to, say, Wal-Mart, and I walked through the store praying, no one has the right to ask me to leave, UNLESS they wish to charge that I was disturbing the peace, or performing some other unlawful activity. If a Wiccan walks through Wal-Mart performing an incantation, I can't stop him, unless he is disturbing the peace. In a public place, worship cannot be restricted unless it involves disturbing the peace. If I were to pray at the top of my lungs in Wal-Mart, I could be asked to leave, but if I am praying quietly (as many probably do in Wal-Mart), then I am completely within the law. The same goes for Wiccans.
REGARDING ETHICS
Whether in public or in private, a witch may not eat a child's heart in America. That is against the law, even though it is based on certain groups' ethical beliefs. Likewise, a Muslim may not cut off the hands of someone who steals from him. This is a result of our Judeo-Christian ethics. However, the witch may perform incantations and the Muslim may pray 5 times a day and read from his Koran, based on the aforementioned rules regarding worship.
If our nation's laws were based on Islamic ethics (and Islam was the majority religion), we might would be allowed to stone our adulterous wives. Then it would be against the law for a Christian to save such a woman. However, though other parts of the Constitution might be violated, as long as the Christian is free to worship, the Establishment Clause has not been violated.
If it was based on Christian ethics, you'd be able to stone adulterous wives. It's right there in the Bible, mate.
Oh yes, I know, I know, but saying that Muslims want to cut off the hands of thieves is about the same as saying Christians want to stone adulterers.
Since you're the expert on the Koran here, please describe the old and new covenants that the Koran entails... if it has them.
The killing of adulterers is not part of Judeo-Christian ethics (by virtue of the Christian part of the system). You should know that.
I know Muslims, and Hindus, and all sorts of people. And really, they don't want to cut off people's hands just because they are thieves. I'm pretty sure that you will find, even in, say, Iran, that thieves' hands are not cut off.
So, if the Old Testament can be safely ignored, there's no problem with genesis, and you can come and accept evolution.
I did not say the Old Testament can be safely ignored... however, some of the old laws changed in the New Testament, and you'd do well to understand them before informing a Christian of his beliefs.
Why are we even talking about this? The question at hand involves the Establishment Clause.
When I used Islam as an example, I wasn't trying to start an argument along these lines. I was simply using it as an example of what can and can't be legislated, and what does and doesn't constitute the establishment of a state religion. Would it have helped if I had said Sharia Law (which is based on a strict interpretation of the Koran) to clarify?
So are you Australian or American?
Anyway, this doesn't surprise me that they would prohibit anyone but a Christian from praying. However, could you imagine how much wasted time we would be forced to endure if every time a prayer was said, we had to listen to one from every religion on the planet?
Mormons get fucked on the polygamy thing; Rastafarians get jacked on the weed thing so I guess that is just how it is going to be. However, I think they should allow someone from the 3rd largest religious sect in this country, Atheist, to say a prayer as well.
What's worse, saying a prayer to a non existent God who you know will not answer you, or saying a prayer to a non existent God who you think is listening?
RE: Fascist
Wal-Mart is not public property, it is private property. So unless you are praying to the God of outsourcing, cheap shit, slave labor and profit, I would assume they would ask you to leave.
You are correct. The government and schools are partial to Judeo-Christianity.
Freedom of religion means being able to do what you choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, including weed and pologamy. Honestly, I believe the work of a house is too much for one wife, which is how the concept came about.
Neo - Wal-Mart is private property. They CAN ask you to leave, no matter how quietly you are praying. Muslims are more likely to eat a child's heart out than wiccans.
Government laws should not be based on any one religion.
Muslims are more likely to eat a child's heart out than wiccans.
What?????
Since when do Muslims eat people's hearts????
Or Wiccans, for that matter?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I was being facisious.
I agree with you about the Soviet Union. What about the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, the current English system? Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Most countries have established laws based on a religious system, but few countries now will use religion as an excuse to pass laws. In he countries mentioned above, God would never enter a discussion about evolution, abortion, stem cell research, drug use, homosexuality, or a myriad of other social issues.
I said that a givernment's laws should not be based on any ONE religion. If religion must be an issue, I suggest that a government study what is common in all religions and come up with a common value system. Then they should agree on laws regarding harming others, but no government should be allowed to regulate the evils we do to ourselves.
That's true, the ideas are Christian; however, we are living in a more tolerant and educated time. We can see the similarities in religions. We are able to set common ground. We don't need to focus our government on religious ideas anymore because we have a common idea of what constitutes humanity. In the past, what broughtt out nation together completely was Christianity. Now Americans are not all Christian, and so it is unfair for them to be governed completely by Christian ideals.
Joe -
The idea of humanity does not come from Christianity, and you are extremely arrogant to assume so. Buddhism was around quite some time before Jesus bin Joesf was even thought of, and Buhhists are the only organized religion on the planet to have never engaged in warefare. Even Quakers have gone to war - ex. Eisenhower. Jews, by the way, are also extremely humane, and they were around long before your Christ. Where do you get the idea that humanity originated with Christianity I would love to read your research.
You can reject Christianity without ruining our society's foundation. Please explain why you think that's not possible. Though your comment got my Irish up a bit, I would like to understand where you are coming from.
Remember that states cannot make laws preempting the constitution, otherwise the abortion and medical marijuana points would be mute.
Buddhists have never gone to war? What? Excuse me, perhaps you've heard of Thailand? A fairly Buddhist country? I'm pretty sure they were allied (not entirely voluntarily) with the Japanese in WW2. And in any case, Buddhists have engaged in warfare at several points in history, as a perfunctory study of your history book will show you.
Joe -
The Buddhist in Thailand are anti-war and pro-diplomacy. They just want to be able to practice their religion without being killed. The places where Buddhist have lived have declared war, however, the Buddhists have either fought only to save their own lives or been slaughtered rather than fight.
Just because a concept wasn't mainstream doesn't mean it didn't exist, and doesn't mean that the people who made it mainstream invented it. You seem to indicate that pagans can't be humane. What is your definition of humanity, in your own words, not as defined by the Bible?
Almost Every is quite a generalization considering the sheer numbers, don't you think? Where are you getting this information from? Take a look at the rastafarians, buddhists, shintus, and possibly druids (though my research is not complete). Also, what about the Crusades? Is that not human sacrifice in the name of religion, even if you call it war? By the way, to me, Christains are pagans.
Thanks for clearing up he druid question. I'm sorry my ancestors killed yours. Can we still be friends? Honestly, Joe, though we may disagree, I am glad to have this discussion with you. If I have, to this point, offended you with harshness, I apologize. Looking back at previous posts, I relize that I have not always been as "adult" as I should be.
Crusades: Okay, so not exactly the same thing, but the point I was making is that Christians have blood on their hands as well, so to claim differently is incorrect. I feel Christians are inhumane in more ways than just one, but in order to discuss, we need a common definition of what constitutes humanity. What is you definition?
If you believe in Hell, why do you believe in punishing sinners in the mortal world when they will surely suffer enough in Hell?
Why do I believe in punishing crimes? Because it means that the criminals are less likely to commit the crime again, and it acts a deterrent to prevent others from comitting crimes.
Because it hurts people. Why else would it be wrong?
...hurting people is generally not in the interest of the "greater good".
Why is it wrong to hurt people? Because it is. Why do you need more reason than that?
You punish people for crimes because they hurt people. That is bad in and of itself. Hurting people is something that should always be avoided.
I don't really see your point. Hurting people is bad. Even if it does serve "the greater good", it is still not the preferrable option.
And why do I have to assume that criminals see things the way normal society does: i.e., hurting people is bad? If they don't know that, they need to learn it, and probably should have psychological treatment of some sort.
I really don't understand what you mean. If it's not because crime hurts people, why do you think crime is bad?
Because people are sapient beings. They are capable of emotion, thought, reasoning, and all that.
Marvelous, what a website it is! This website gives valuable information to us, keep it up.
Feel free to surf to my webpage; fight depression
Ahaa, its good conversation on the topic of this paragraph here at this
weblog, I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.
Also visit my homepage; davsirsa.com
If you want to increase your know-how only keep
visiting this web site and be updated with the newest gossip posted here.
Also visit my web blog: mti-edu.org
This paragraph will help the internet people for setting up new
blog or even a weblog from start to end.
My blog - wiki.combin.name
This piece of writing will assist the internet viewers for setting up
new website or even a weblog from start to end.
Also visit my web blog :: auto insurance quote
I seriously love your blog.. Pleasant colors & theme.
Did you develop this site yourself? Please reply back as I'm wanting to create my very own blog and would like to learn where you got this from or what the theme is named. Cheers!
Feel free to surf to my website: marketing strategies
my website > good marketing
Hey there are using Wordpress for your site platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and create my own.
Do you require any html coding knowledge to make your own blog?
Any help would be really appreciated!
Feel free to visit my blog post - home business
Its like you read my mind! You appear to
understand a lot about this, such as you wrote the e book in
it or something. I believe that you simply can do with
some p.c. to drive the message home a bit,
but other than that, that is wonderful blog.
A great read. I will certainly be back.
Review my webpage: www.wizeguyclaims.co.uk
I go to see day-to-day some web pages and websites to read articles, but this website gives
quality based posts.
Here is my blog post :: http://esponjadelufa.com/
I all the time emailed this weblog post page to all my associates,
since if like to read it next my links will
too.
My blog ... webcircles.nl
Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the internet the simplest
thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people think about
worries that they plainly do not know about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect ,
people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
Thanks
Here is my web blog; children clothing
Start Ranting
<< Home