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

By taking note of the fact that other nations without a U.S.-like First Amendment seem to be much more secular, I am reminded of observations by Jefferson, Madison, et al, where they noted that by keeping religion out of government and government out of religion, both would be stronger, and better served.Another obserevation of mine is that I don't agree that granting full rights to homosexuals, e.g., the right to marry whoever they choose in any way erodes the rights of xians. After all, many of these homosexuals are xian. I don't see that as a religious issue at all.As a U.S. citizen, my impression is that any erosion of religious rights of late comes out in the favor if xianity and against the rights of the secular community and people of other religions. I am especially put off by comments coming from what I have come to call "The First Pulpit" lately. IMO a political leader, at least in the U.S., is more than free to practice his religion, if any, in private. But he should be religiously neutral in his capacity as President. We are not getting that from our current leader and I will do my darndest to help defeat him. I shudder at the thought of Dubya getting to appoint a SCOTUS justice.An upcoming SCOTUS decision (Newdow vs. Elk Grove school dist.) will give us a clear barometer of whether we are truly open to across-the-board religion, and no religion; or if xianity has maintained this McCarthy era incursion into our lives.Getting back to my opinion that a President should be religiously neutral in his job as President, I made a comment in another forum that in a recent speech, I heard Bush say that "freedom is a gift from the Almighty". I took issue with this, stating that I think our freedom has been earned by the blood of our fallen soldiers and that his comments were a direct slap in the face of our past and present troops, and nothing but his throwing at us his religious opinion. He should keep comments like this in his home or church.I hope this is back on the original topic.Verzem

willowtree, I disagree with you on both points. It is merely your opinion that the topic title implies either of your premises. You read too much into the mod's and/or Sylas'use of the words "if any". Perhaps they don't think there has been any erosion of rights. Perhaps they are open to having you point any erosions out to them, which is what I think was implied. You could ask them if anything was meant besides the actual words.As Cynic1 has ably pointed out to you, atheism is not a religion.This country may have been founded by many theists/deists, but they went out of their way to keep their religion out of the new government. So what if they owned Bibles? I own a Bible. That doesn't make me a xian.How would you presume to know how the FF wanted their efforts to be interpreted? Say what? This is nothing more than opinion. It is accurate that the actual words "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. But the first Amendment is most definitely a separation between religion and government. It keeps the government out of religion, and religion out of government. Or, at least, it is supposed to. It is funny how some Jefferson quotes taken out of context are sometimes used by people like you to bolster your arguments; yet you try to claim some of his quotes that present xianity in a negative view have been altered.Those judgements by the judicial branch you referred to are very much correct decisions. How could you possibly deny that a cross on public land is an endorsement of xianity? Do you deny that the cross has any special relationship or symbolism to xianity?And you need to cut the bullshit. This is NOT a xian nation. Where the hell did you ever get that riduculous idea from?So what if you can find myriad references to some deity or another from the FF? When it came down to actually making the contract (as you prefer to call it) they most certainly made it GODLESS.You imply a god/xianity hatred where none exists. How could anyone hate anything that they don't think exists?We seem to agree on John Ashcroft, though probably for different reasons.

As both Jefferson and Madison so ably pointed out, the First Amendment applies to thoughts, and not actions. Laws can most definitely be passed that restrict actions. Anti-polygamy laws are a good example, as is the aforementioned restriction against using peyote. Neither of these laws do any more than restrict some religious practices. The word "restrict" does not appear in the First Amendment. Neither of these laws prohibit any religion.Whether it is a law restricting a heinous crime like child sacrifice, a moderate crime like polygamy, or a modest crime like ingesting peyote doesn't matter. Laws can be passed that restrict religion. The degree of crime is irrelevant.Certainly it is understandable that joining a religion doesn't give anyone any special priviledges outside of the law. The law applies to all of us equally. Religion is irrelevant to this principle.Verzem

berberry,While I would agree with your point in a purely logical argument, I don't think it is valid when actually applied to society. As I mentioned, and PaulK so succinctly wrote in his second sentence above, the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment in no way gives religion carte blanche to do as it will, regardless of civil law. It is not valid to argue that this should apply only to really serious crimes. Whether people have a religion or not, and no matter what religion it might be, the law applies to every U.S. citizen equally.Where the "free exercise" clause is applicable would be, e.g., it would be illegal for Congress to pass a law prohibiting the recital of The Creed in church. Again, the First Amendment applies to thoughts, and not actions. People are free to exercise their religion as long as it is within the law.Verzem

WillowTree,It is perfectly obvious to most of us that the e and w are next to each other on the keyboard.The next thing that is obvious is that, if you are going to bust someone's chops for errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.), you should be perfect yourself.We have not forgotten this.crashfrog,What? You let Packers fans exist in Vikings land? They should be taken to the town square and stoned? I thought green and yellow were banned in Minnesota. And to think that you would actually marry one. That is disgusting! What did your parents think?On a bit more serious note, "fullback" is one word and the fullback is generally the player who blocks for the running back on running plays, occasionally gets to carry the ball, picks up (blocks) defensive ends who get around the tackles or blitzing linebackers or defensive backs, and sometimes drops into short passing routes as a check-off receiver. A "blitzing" linebacker is one who rushes the quarterback instead of taking care of his normal responsibilities.BTW, I have some Minnesota roots (St. Cloud area) which helps explain the first paragraph to you.Verzem