Church and State

[LoveALL]

"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." That's the 1st Amendment... now I'd like to debate our interpretations

[WinePusher]

My interpretation of the first amendment is based on the text. Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The framers had a gift for writing blunt statements, and I don't think any other clause in the Bill of Rights or the entire Constitution is as clear and concise as this. As laws have been made and tested before the Supreme Court, particularly the Warren Court, we have narrowed the scope and definition of the first amendment. Government run institutions, such as public schools, cannot host moments of prayer and individuals whose religious convictions and practices conflict with the law utlimately have to defer to the law. I have always made the argument that the Free Exercise clause protects the tax exempt status of churches and other various faith based organizations. And I would argue, that although a wall of seperation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation. I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

[LoveALL]

how ever unfortunate this might be in my opinion America is becoming less and less of a Christian Nation. My thoughts on the free exercise clause are thus, if it stems from a spiritual need or religious obligation and hurts no one else nor is anyone who doesn't want to forced to participate then the action (whatever it might be) should be allowed and the person's right respected.

While I don't personally support Gay-Marriage or Polygamy they don't hurt anyone else in and of themselves and therefore so long as my church, my family, and/or myself are not forced to participate they should be permitted.

Another example, I can read a Bible on school grounds silently to myself... what is a bit less clear is whether or not I as a student have the write to discuss scripture with other like-minded students on school grounds. But if the line I have drawn as my interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct then this too should be allowed

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

Gotta snip some of the context on this first'n so I can address what seems ambiguous...

I think believers of all religions deserve respect and protection

This reads like, "As long as they're religious, they deserve respect and protection". To my paranoid mind it seems as if you're not including atheists. I mention this so you may clarify. (I try not to assume too much, even as I think I know your answer)

Here I don't think I'm snipping any context...

Abortion- NO! why? Because It's the killing of an innocent human being

What if the baby being aborted would in all medical likelihood die, taking the mother of four other children with it?
-----------

From Post 6:

My thoughts on the free exercise clause are thus, if it stems from a spiritual need or religious obligation and hurts no one else nor is anyone who doesn't want to forced to participate then the action (whatever it might be) should be allowed and the person's right respected.

I think this fails to take into account possible sub/conscious retaliatory action against those who don't share in the practice. This would ring especially true in the case of schools, where it is a rather well understood notion that kids who don't "fit in" are ostracized and harrassed.

While I don't personally support Gay-Marriage or Polygamy they don't hurt anyone else in and of themselves and therefore so long as my church, my family, and/or myself are not forced to participate they should be permitted.

Agreed. I include your statement here in an effort not to try to unbalance your "scales".

Another example, I can read a Bible on school grounds silently to myself... what is a bit less clear is whether or not I as a student have the write to discuss scripture with other like-minded students on school grounds. But if the line I have drawn as my interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct then this too should be allowed

And it is allowed, among students, during non-instructional time, and when done in such a manner as to not be disruptive.

[Crazee]

The first would be when an individual makes a religious statement or a statement based on a religious view, and is criticized or even attacked by other individuals, or media organizations. They then claim their religious freedom is being violated.

Sorry, the First Amendment applies to actions by government bodies, not individuals. The attackers may be unkind, unfair, rude, or wrong, but the First Amendment does not guarantee your right not to be criticized.

Amen to that.

My thoughts on the free exercise clause are thus, if it stems from a spiritual need or religious obligation and hurts no one else nor is anyone who doesn't want to forced to participate then the action (whatever it might be) should be allowed and the person's right respected.

The difficulties arise when you try to pinpoint exactly what a spiritual need is. It's also hard to say exactly when we are hurting others and when we aren't.

What if someone said that injecting heroine was a spiritual necessity for them since it made them feel closer to God. In the immediate sense, they aren't hurting anyone. But if you account for the drug wars that occur because of the transport of drugs, as well as emotional damage done to friends and family through this person's drug addiction, than it doesn't seem so harmless to others.

Much religious practice can be viewed the same way. It is frequently something people need to partake in regularly to feel more connected to God, it's spread sometimes causes much violence between those with opposing beliefs, and it can cause a divide between friends and families; it has definitely created some division in my family.

The first amendment's intents are good, but in the end we can't control how people think entirely through law. The best thing we can do, is love All, and the changes in thinking will occur naturally on a global level. It may be aided by laws such as the first amendment, but it depends so much more on the receptivity of the public to positive change than anything else imo.

While I don't personally support Gay-Marriage or Polygamy they don't hurt anyone else in and of themselves and therefore so long as my church, my family, and/or myself are not forced to participate they should be permitted.

Why not just say as long as no one is forced to participate, than it is alright.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

It is you, WinePusher. My nemesis. I hope your WineCave is well stocked, that I might drain it one day

My interpretation of the first amendment is based on the text. Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The framers had a gift for writing blunt statements, and I don't think any other clause in the Bill of Rights or the entire Constitution is as clear and concise as this. As laws have been made and tested before the Supreme Court, particularly the Warren Court, we have narrowed the scope and definition of the first amendment. Government run institutions, such as public schools, cannot host moments of prayer and individuals whose religious convictions and practices conflict with the law utlimately have to defer to the law.

Agreed. Included to ensure I'm being -ahem- fair and balanced

I have always made the argument that the Free Exercise clause protects the tax exempt status of churches and other various faith based organizations.

Though I think they shouldn't be held tax exempt based solely on religion, especially when so many churches flout rules against politicking, I do agree the clause in question makes it difficult to change the status quo - and perhaps for all the right reasons.

And I would argue, that although a wall of seperation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation. I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

It's only logical that a Frenchman (no slur) would define what it is to be America

[WinePusher]

The first amendment's intents are good, but in the end we can't control how people think entirely through law.

That's not what the first amendment does, that's not what any of the amendments within the Bill of Rights does. micatala is absolutely right, and I'm impressed with his knowledge of this subject:

Sorry, the First Amendment applies to actions by government bodies, not individuals.

The intention of the first amendment isn't to control any aspect of individual behavior. The intention is to control aspects of government behavior. And your heroine example doesn't make sense. If the religion you belong to says that heroine injections are required every sunday and the state you live in has outlawed heroine, I'm sorry, but you don't get to inject yourself with heroine every Sunday since the law was not created with an expressed purpose to suppress free exercise. If a law is created with an expressed purpose to suppress free exercise, then you would be exempt. Like in this case.

[McCulloch]

My interpretation of the first amendment is based on the text.

I think that this kind of literalism is not useful. Is the US Constitution divinely revealed text? Why treat it so? Is the principle of separation a good one? Should the first amendment be applied only to the actions of the Congress, as the wording of the text would imply, or should it apply more broadly as the Courts have ruled?

I have always made the argument that the Free Exercise clause protects the tax exempt status of churches and other various faith based organizations.

So far, the courts and general practice agree with you. The underlying question is whether religious institutions should receive favorable tax treatment. My own view is that the governments should be blind to religion.

And I would argue, that although a wall of separation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation.

Jefferson and others disagree. The United States of America, is the world's first major secular nation, albeit one with a largely Christian population (at least nominally).

I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

Was that an observation regarding the faith of the people or the country's laws and governance?

[Crazee]

The intention of the first amendment isn't to control any aspect of individual behavior. The intention is to control aspects of government behavior. And your heroine example doesn't make sense. If the religion you belong to says that heroine injections are required every sunday and the state you live in has outlawed heroine, I'm sorry, but you don't get to inject yourself with heroine every Sunday since the law was not created with an expressed purpose to suppress free exercise. If a law is created with an expressed purpose to suppress free exercise, then you would be exempt. Like in this

Okay, the heroine example was a bad one.

Anyways, you get certain advantages by declaring oneself to be a church or religious practice. The one that comes most immediately to mind is taxes, religious institutions get all sorts of cuts on taxes. So, in regards to religion, the first amendment could be used as a legal loophole to get out of paying taxes.

[Goat]

The first would be when an individual makes a religious statement or a statement based on a religious view, and is criticized or even attacked by other individuals, or media organizations. They then claim their religious freedom is being violated.

Sorry, the First Amendment applies to actions by government bodies, not individuals. The attackers may be unkind, unfair, rude, or wrong, but the First Amendment does not guarantee your right not to be criticized.

Amen to that.

My thoughts on the free exercise clause are thus, if it stems from a spiritual need or religious obligation and hurts no one else nor is anyone who doesn't want to forced to participate then the action (whatever it might be) should be allowed and the person's right respected.

The difficulties arise when you try to pinpoint exactly what a spiritual need is. It's also hard to say exactly when we are hurting others and when we aren't.

What if someone said that injecting heroine was a spiritual necessity for them since it made them feel closer to God. In the immediate sense, they aren't hurting anyone. But if you account for the drug wars that occur because of the transport of drugs, as well as emotional damage done to friends and family through this person's drug addiction, than it doesn't seem so harmless to others.

Ah, but the drug wars exist because the Powers that Be, through their religious belief, have made Drugs illegal, and that had the unintended consequences of people using the profit motive to supply drugs to those who don't care what the Powers the Be want for them.

So, ultimately , the harm comes from people using the State to try to enforce their religious beliefs.

[LoveALL]

The fact is that most people who actually have a religion don't like the people who only give a crap when they get what they want out of it or push it down the throats of others anymore than anyone else. We also don't like it when the law forces us to go against deep-rooted practices and traditions or when individuals try to make us do so and the law doesn't help us.

For example, this is a forign example and not happening in my country but I'm going to use it anyway... Currently there is a law against thye students and staff of French public schools wearing religious symbols... This becomes an issue when the "symbols" are part of the practice of the faith. The biggest and most obvious comes in religions like Islam and certain traditional forms of Christianity and Judaism which strongly encourage or require women to wear a head-covering.