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

I still have to have a further explanation of how there can possibly be any blackmail. You have already made your assertions in a public forum where anyone on the internet can find them and read them. By the rules of this forum you already have an obligation to back up your claims. ALl the title does is make it a little easier to find - and make it a little harder for you to evade without making it obvious.If you are prepared to back up your assertions then there is no room for blackmail. By invoking "blackmail" I can only conclude that you know that what you said was not true and you are deeply ashamed of it - yet you lack the integrity to issue an honest retraction.

I suggest that you read the material you quote. Your guilt is inferred not from silence but from your assertion of blackmail !Let me guess. You intended not to answer the question because you were lying in the first place. But you can't pretend that you didn't see the thread because your name is in it. So instead you invnet this accusation of blackmail. If this is in any way wrong I suggest you tell the real truth because your tactic of evasion and false accusations only make things look worse for you.The rules of the forum pretty much require you to participate - you are required to back up your assertions. Your name in the thread title only makes it harder for you to avoid your responsibility.Let me make it very clear. The only way your reputation could be in danger is if you intended to be dishonest. ALl ypou had to do was to answer honestly. Instead you made up an absurd accusation of blackmail - telling everyone that you had something to hide.You've only yourself to blame. If you had been entirely honest then you would be free and clear.

I'll take that as an admission that my understanding of the situation was correct.You were lying from the start - and your accusation of blackmail was another lie to try to cover up the original lie. A foolish lie since it only made things look worse than even a complete refusal to reply would have been - but a lie none the less.I wish I could say that I was shocked that a self-styled "Christian" could act in such an amoral way. But I've grown to expect it from creationists.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-24-2004]

While the law does represent a restriction on free exercise it has already been conceded that the underlying basis for it is valid. Free exercise does not place religious activity above the law. I will add that if the case had gone the other way there would be a strong pressure for legalisation of peyote and probably marijuana if the Rastafarians brought similar cases. These factors are probably the deciding issues given the prevailing attitude to drugs.So I don't think that this case indicates a significant erosion of religious rights. It is stepping right up to the boundary, and it could be argued that it should have gone the other way, but it is understandable as it stands without invoking any underlying intent to erode religious rights. And since the case was decided 14 years ago if there were any such intent then we should see further and more significant erosions by now.

In post 59 you accepted the principle that the First Amendment did not give religious practices exemption from the law.For this particular case to really be about the First Amendment it needs to be shown that the law against peyote exists for the purpose of forbidding a religious practice. To the best of my knowledge that has not been shown.I contend that the judges in this case are opposed to the legalisation of drugs and decided the case on that basis. If the decision had gone the other way peyote would have to be legalised. Not only that, but the door would be open for the Rastafarians to launch a similar case for the legalsiation of marijuana. These factors in themselves are sufficient to account for the decision, without there being any intent to undermine the First Amendment.

Even so as I say the decision is explicable without resorting to assuming anything more sinister than an opposition to the legalisation of a hallucinogenic drug.And as I have also pointed out the decision was made 14 years ago. There has been plenty of time for further erosion. If your claims were correct there should have been further cases - and ones which show clearer signs of an intent to erode religious freedom. The very fact that you chose this case indicates that you are unaware of any such examples.

What I am DOING is looking at the most likely reason for the decision. And that is the drugs issue. Apparently you object to considering evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theory.Maybe you have more and better examples but if you had them when you started this thread it would be very odd for it to go on so long with obly the one weak example you have offered. I therefore conclude that you made your claims without any rational basis.As to my view on the state and rights I would say that there is no simple relationship. The state is necessary for the preservation of rights, so any idea that the state is opposed to the rights of citizens is to simplistic. I would also add that in a democratic state it is difficult for the state to significantly erode rights without public support. Speaking from my personal experience, living in Britain, Identity Cards have been proposed many times and until the current terrorism scare were rejected as being too intrusive. Even now the experiment that has been introduced is still controversial and may come to nothing.The role of a written constitution is equally two-edged. Without the First Amendment, for instance, it would have been far easier to make an exception allowing peyote use in religious ceremonies.

I've explained exactly why the case is very weak as support for your position. And you have offered nothing to refute it. And you can't know how I will repsond to stronger evidence because you havn't offered any.And since you certainly didn't beat me in the "resurrection" thread I can hardly be angry over that.If you want to run away because you can;t face the truth then go ahead and do it. But leave your fantasies about me out of it.

To make an exemption requires the state to judge whether or not an organisation qualifies. That in itself is an entanglement since it requires judging whether or not an organisation is a valid religion.In contrast removing the exemption simply treats churches like any other organisation. To characterise this as an "entanglement" is highly questionable - even the examples given are essentially non-religious dealing with finances and property. To claim that giving churches special privileges does NOT have the primary effect of advancing religion is obviously false - the more so since it is claimed that removal of these privileges would inhibit free exercise (itself also highly questionable).I note also that the claim of "entanglement" in taxation is supported by a Supreme Court ruling. This is the same body that is supposedly eroding rights in the first place. Perhaps you would do better to characterise that decision as an "erosion" of religious rights since it forces the state to judge whether organisations are or are not genuine religions.

Simply saying that finance is religious does not make it so. Of cource Christianity does have religious beliefs that are relevant "The love of money is the root of all evil" or "render unto Caesar what is Caesars" (the latter referring to payment of taxes !). But these do not seem to say that the church should seek to gather and hold money - quite the reverse.We are not talking about special "sacred" money like the Jewish Temple money (and we know what Jesus thought of that!) but ordinary dollars and cents - often spent on mundane things like the maintainance of buildings.Perhaps you worship money and would revolt if a portion of it were taken in taxation but it is hard to see that view as Christian.

Well it seems that rather than answer my points you are trying to play games. The point of course of introducing the idea of the worship of money is of course YOUR implied claim that money is a religious object.Perhaps money is sacred to you - but if it is you are going against the teachings of Jesus and Paul.See Matthew 6:16-24.

Jesus was quite clear that money was not important - and should not be worshipped. Paul supposedly stated that "The love of money is the root of all evil" (it's in 1 Timothy 6:10, now I check so likely Paul didn;t write it).The collection you refer to was for the upkeep of the Temple (which has been rublle for more than 1900 years) and not set up until the reign of Jehoash (2 Kings 12).So we are still waiting for you to support your claim that paying taxes interferes with free exercise in a way that is consistent with Christianity.

Actually you DID say that money should be worshipped.When I asked you if worship of money was the basis of the claim that the objection to taxation was religious you replied "EVERYONE worships money." (post 116), with the clear implicaiton that such was proper.And Jesus told the rich young man to give his money TO THE POOR - not the Temple, nor to Him. If money is so important then why would he tell him to just give it away like that ?And I do find it interesting that you say that God disagrees with Jesus on that issue.But as you refuse to defend the idea that taxation of churches is a restriction on free exercise I guess the point is moot. No restriction of free exercise = no erosion of religious rights. And means that taxation is not a religious issue in itself - which you certainly have denied although you have yet to give any argument for doing so.(The claim that taxation was a restriction of free exercise appeared in material you quoted in post 90:
"Removal of tax exemption from churches would demonstrate hostility toward religion and inhibit the free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause."Given that you chose to quote this material, that you did not give any indication that you rejected it and it is the only part that actually could support your claim of erosion of religious rights then it is quite reasonable to assume that you shared that view. Moreover it is the only thing in the quoted material consistent with your view that this is a religious issue).

Well, so you were playing games when you threw in that "everyone worships money". You knew full well that money is not a religious issue.And sicne you have Jesus and God disagreeing it is clear that you reject the doctrine of the Trinity - and probably the Incarnation, too. Are you a Mormon ? You certainly aren't an orthodox Christian.By the way you won't find the concept of "entanglement" in the First Amendment itself. It's just one of those court interpetations that you would be bitterly complaining against if you didn't like it. I've already explained why I find it unconvincing and that point remains unanswered.You still haven't offered one reason why taxation is a religious matter. And the idea that it could be used to "eliminate" churches is silly - how for instance could it be used to "eliminate" a church that already pays taxes ? And setting taxes to specifically target a Church WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment. It makes no more sense than saying that taxing publishers is a threat to free speech because publishers could be targeted and driven out of business by taxation.

YOu want evidence that money is not a religious matter ?Money is issued by the Government - that is purely secular.That in itself is enough to settle the issue without pointing out that money is used in many many purely secular transactions by people regardless of religion - or the lack of it. Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans and atheists use the same money for the same things.As I said we are dealing with ordinary dollars and cents.There is no question that money is a part of ordinary secular society. So it is YOUR claim of some special religious issue that needs support.So if you want to say that money is a religious matter THAT is something that needs evidence.On the other issue I note that you are misrepresenting my arguments which are that1) The potential for abuse in itself does not make a law a violation of the First Amendment nor is it a sufficient reason when that abuse itself can be fought in courts - and IS a violation of the First Amendment. Tbere is no requirement to trust the government NOT to abuse power - all we need to trust is that the targets of any such abuse can and will use their rights - rights which the First amendment guarantews - to resist such abuse. Not that any plausible method of targetting specific churches has been suggested, and contrary to your claim nothing you said in post 90 suggested even the possibility of "targetting" churches. Rather it was suggested that actually enforcing the law constituted an "entanglement". If you have a court decision which talks of "targetting" you had better produce that reference. As far as I am concerned it is simply not a realistic possibility.2) According to you YOUR church pays taxes anyway and will be completely unaffected. That is what you said in Post 90.3) The same issue exists with regard to publishers and that is NOT held as a reason to exempt publishers from taxation. Nor - to the best of my knowledge - are there any cases of such targetting