What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?

I think the Taliban are the new Nazis. Insofar as the first person to compare their opponent to the Taliban has lost the argument.I mean come on... the guy's a dink, and he was breaking the law to be sure, but he's hardly up to the level of killing anybody, or turning half the population of the country into second-class citizens by virtue of their genitals. The Taliban comparison just isn't valid.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

But Whoopi G would have me as a "FUNDAMENTALIST" while all I am trying to do is recreate the science of my Granddad that saw genetics in terms of arrenhius equations. Apparently in life that proper name gave support to GP as well.

Ah, just ask her how Hollywood Squares is going. That'll shut her up.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

OK point taken

Dan Carroll quote:______________________________________________________________________
I think the Taliban are the new Nazis
______________________________________________________________________Prior to World War 2 New Orthodox theologians and their philosophical friends in the secular world believed that sin was ignorance and education was the cure.Post World War 2 these theologians abandoned this belief wholesale. They witnessed the most educated nation on Earth commit the unspeakable Holocaust - 6 million Jews slaughtered.Nazi Germany was propelled and equipped by highly educated men, yet this education/knowledge did not cure sin, it is a fact that the intelligence of these men was used to perfect sin via the atrocities committed against the Jewish race.New Orthodoxy returned to the spring/source/Bible for answers. They re-discovered that which was already there. Man has a "bent" in his nature, a proclivity to want to do evil/sin. They were re-awakened
to the Biblical truth of original sin.The Doctrine of Original Sin says: Because of Adam/Eve sin, we are born separated from God with a sinning nature. We are not sinners because we commit sins, rather, we commit sin because we are sinners.Yet, most importantly, the truth of what God said about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good ad Evil is apparent: There is NO POWER in the knowledge of good and evil to CHOOSE the good over the evil APART from God.I urge you to understand the above statement.What it says is that you can know right and wrong/good and evil BUT man will still choose the evil and not the good because he is separated from God.The most educated nation on Earth, Nazi Germany demonstrates this truth/fact.Knowledge and education is not the cure for sin.Conclusion/Point of Post:Every American and European university professor who provides the justification and rationale and excuses for the murdercide of defenseless Israeli civilians are adopting the mantle of the Nazi's, using their ultra educational status/credentials as a tool to sin/murder Jews. They are the New Neo-Nazi's.When is the morality of the highly educated going to reach the Jews and condemn their murders by Palestinian suicide cowards ?

quote:

---

I urge you to understand the above statement.

---

In return, I urge you to read the second half of the statement you snipped. It makes clear that I was making a quick joke about online debating, not actually saying anything about Nazism.I also urge you once again to bring up specific instances of erosion of religious rights.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

OT, I know, but where do WT, GW Bush, and all those other folks get off calling suicide attackers "cowards?" That's one thing they aren't. Nutsoid, maybe, but not chicken.

Excerpt from "Why Religion Matters" by Professor Huston Smith (2001)"Employment Division v. Smith sent shockwaves through the churches of the land, for while the Native American Church was its direct target, its ramifications did not impact that Church alone. Watchdogs for the major churches had been following the Smith case closely, seeing consequences in it for religious freedom in general: "If it's them today, tomorrow it could be us." So it was that, the day after the Supreme Court's decision, the largest coalition of religious bodies ever to unite in a common cause - some sevnty five in all - entered a brief asking the Court to reconsider its decision, which it refused to do.The churches had reason to be concerned, for no one had expected the provisions of Smith to be so far reaching. Through hundreds of federal and state cases relating to American religious freedom in the last two hundred years, the phrase "compelling state interest" had emerged as the test for state intervention. Unless the state could prove that there was a compelling need to intervene, it was not entitled to do so. Smith lowered that threshold to a "rational basis".To support this retreat from the established threshold, Justice Scalia (who wrote the decision) argued that America's religious diversity had proliferated to the point where religious freedom was a "luxury" that a pluralistic society could no longer "afford." In withdrawing the "compelling interest" standard, the court also removed from First Amendment protection the entire body of criminal law. This, in effect, rewrote the First Amendment to read, "Congress shall make no laws except criminal laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion." (Put more simply, Smith mandated Congress to disregard the First Amendment if the law being considered is classed as a criminal law.) Finally, the court suggested that the First Amendment does not protect the free exercise of religion unless some other First Amendment right, such as speech or association, is involved. This, of course, makes religious freedom irrelevant, for those other rights are independently protected. Milner Ball, professor of constitutional law at the university of Georgia, said at the time that "after Smith, there is a real and troublesome question about whether the free exercise clause has any real practical meaning in the law at all. When you need the First Amendment, it won't be there. Or at least, that is the way the Smith case has left the law."I have already referred to the consternation that the Smith decision awakened in the religious community, and it sprang into action immediately. With the strong support of President Clinton, the coalition of churches succeeded in getting Congress to pass the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the "compelling interest" phrase as the standard that government agencies needed to meet before they could interfere in religious affairs. The churches breathed easier, but only for three years, for in 1997 the Supreme Court struck down that act on grounds that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in passing it." END EXCERPT.
______________________________________________________________________Forget about party affiliation, that is a smoke screen you cannot trust. The Supreme Court, and its pseudo-republican justices reflect the nature of government perfectly. Constitutional rights for mainstream powerful churches is in a position to be eliminated. The State views ANYONE with power to be a threat, they butcher the Contract/Constitution by circumvention, if not straight out eviscerating its strength via lowering established threshholds for State intervention.The hypocrisy of the Supreme Court is to give the freak show called the Amish, constitutional protection under the First Amendment from having to send their kids to secular schools. They point to this and say, "See, the First Amendment in action." The Amish pose no perceived threat, but they will not ever rule in favor of intelligent mainstream churches. Yet the Church-hating news media will not cry foul with their powerful resources because their rights are not being threatened. Everyones rights are eligible and will be stripped, just give the government time. The war on terror will do just that.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-26-2004]

What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?Since no answer has, so far, been forthcoming, perhaps someone would list what they percieve to be the "religious rights" in the US. Obviously the inclusions and omissions on the list might cause drawn out off-topic debate, but it may at least yield something in the way of discussing a specific "right" that is being "eroded". Just a suggestion...

WT, may I assume that Employment Division vs Smith was a decision that held that peyote was illegal even if used in religious services?

I think you meant to respond to someone else's post, but I'll bite.Are you saying that the first amendment should protect churches from criminal law? It should be okay to kill gays and witches, or perform human sacrifice, or whatever people think is mandated by their religion?What religious freedoms other than speech and assembly do you think are fair?

WTI will agree with you that the Religious Freedom Restoration Bill was a blatent attempt to restrict religious rights in the US. Fortunately, it was struck down as being unconstitutional. So while there are attempts like RFR that try to limit religious freedom, so far our system has protected us.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes.Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)Here we have a non threatening religious practice USED by the State to vacate the high standard of government intrusion (compelling state interest) in favor of a lower standard for no other reason than to provide the State the means to capriciously control ALL churches.Any entity that has power is a target for rights erosion. The Smith decision will become a springboard/has become an entry point to remove the strength of the First Amendement as it pertains to churches.The reality is this: First Amendment is there in effigy, a marquee that has been gutted.It is better that peyote eating wackos be able to ingest drug at religious services, than for the government to use this as precedent/pretext to declaw the First Amendment.The price of freedom is association with nuts/those who will abuse freedom, but who is going to protect us from outlaws like Scalia, Rehnquist, and Ginsburg ?

Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Are you saying that the first amendment should protect churches from criminal law? It should be okay to kill gays and witches, or perform human sacrifice, or whatever people think is mandated by their religion?
______________________________________________________________________Absolutely not.If a crime has been committted and probable cause established, then the police have the right to go after the suspects.Murder ? Of course not !Eating peyote, though, is a long established indigenous religious practice. This is the beast of government using the drop of a hat to obtain the means to be able to control churches in the future without worrying about the First Amendment.

You're damn right, but I wouldn't characterize the Native American Church folks I knew in Oklahoma as "wackos." Good, solid members of society, and pretty quiet people. And their peyote eating "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", to aggrandize some Jefferson.