- No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (Article VI).
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (First Amendment).
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Three reasons the US government has no business involving itself with relgion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many religious folk don't understand that the price of not having the government mess with them is that they don't mess with the government.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
ReplyDeleteOf course Number 3 does seem to get ignored sometimes though. Separation of church and state doesn't mean the elimination of church within the state.
Number three isn't ignored. You can't play favourites if you are going to have religion within the state.
ReplyDeleteThat means equal time for all: no one sect gets preferential treatment.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and on and on should get an equal pulpit.
otherwise, hands off.
Of course, I am of the opinion that since December comprises Hanukkah, Christmas, Solstice, Saturnalia, Kwanzaa, and so on, the US should take the entire month off.
ReplyDelete"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (First Amendment)."
ReplyDeleteWhat if a religion espouses the belief that people should carry guns at all times? Should Congress be allowed to prohibit the free exercise of that religion?
Talk about single issue voters!
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the Branch Davidians?
Well, there are religions which claim psychedelic drug use (e.g., Native American see Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)) that get away with it, whilst Timothy Leary's attempt to do so was met with derision.
There is the Sikh Religion that requires a sword (or more practically a small knife) is worn.
On the other hand, if your reason for starting this religion is solely for the purpose of skirting gun laws--you're probably out of luck.
As I said about Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
The Court characterized Smith's and Black's argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon's neutral, generally applicable ban on the possession of peyote. The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.
US Law on the wearing of the Sikh ceremonial Sword (kirpan)
ReplyDeleteUnited States of America
There have been several court cases in states of the USA relating to the legality of wearing a kirpan in public places. Courts in New York and Ohio have ruled that banning the wearing of a kirpan is unconstitutional. In New York City a compromise was reached with the Board of Education whereby the wearing of the knives was allowed so long as they were secured within the sheaths with adhesives and made impossible to draw. In recent years the Sikh practice of wearing a kirpan has caused problems for security personnel at airports and other checkpoints; security personnel may confiscate kirpans if they feel it is necessary, but are advised to treat them with respect. Sikh leaders chose not to attend an April 17, 2008 interfaith meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, DC rather than remove the kirpan.
So, Jim, do you believe such a religion requiring hand guns be worn is plausible as a legitimate religion?
ReplyDeleteI don't, and I don't think you do either.
"You can't play favourites if you are going to have religion within the state.
ReplyDeleteThat means equal time for all: no one sect gets preferential treatment."
That is exactly my point. No establishment of religion but you cannot eliminate religion either.
Some erroneously take it to mean that nothing at all religious can exist in government.
For example: some would make it so that you could not let a Christian Youth Group rent a school gym or let any religious group use a government facility but that is not the case. You just cannot let one religious group use it but deny another.
Still others would like to ban crosses or other religious symbols from schools and public areas or limit personal religious speech.
All of December off. I go for that.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, if you have crosses then you open the door for Buddhas.
ReplyDeleteIf the School allows for Christian Prayer groups, then they need to allow Jews, Muslims, etc. the same courtesy.
So, some prefer to not allow it on school property.
"If the School allows for Christian Prayer groups, then they need to allow Jews, Muslims, etc. the same courtesy."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
FatWhiteMan:
ReplyDeleteI think I can guarantee the same people who scream the loudest about being "persecuted" for not being able to force prayer in public schools and at public events, teach the "theory" of creationism and wear their, "Fags will burn in Hell" t-shirts on the "Day of Silence" will be quite voiceferous objectors to any other religions (or even various brands of christianity) being given the same level of deference as they already enjoy. And that is not even bringing the atheists and their billboards on private property into the mix.