|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
I would hazard a guess that the hydrophobia referred to the disease rabies....and foaming at the mouth.
Otherwise it is a fear of water. This message has been edited by Asgara, 05-20-2004 10:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4577 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
That was me, in a tactless sort of way, saying "sit back and take a deep breath before you have a heart attack." May have gone a little too far....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When I was a young man dating I suffered from Angoraphobia.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Considering the reply which Willowtree has posted below your re-opening post, I suggest that you close it again. Willowtree has absolutely no intention of providing examples or evidence of erosion of religious rights. We're 213 messages into this and none the wiser.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Post 214 of this topic clearly says that no examples of religious rights erosion have been posted.
This is completely untrue. Post 214 author is making a point, and that point is that she disagrees with every instance of erosion that I have presented. But instead of saying that she wants to ignore it all so she can declare that religious right erosion is non-existant. If I create a master post that simply lists the alleged rights erosions that I have posted since the OP will an Admin make a ruling as to the truthfulness of the accusation leveled in post 214 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I don't think we have ever had a policity of ruling in this manner. However, I would give my personal opinion to the best of my ability.
If you are clear on what you post then it should be apparent that you are right if that is the case. It is, in any case, probably a good time for a summary of what we have so far and what is still under discussion. This is something that should be done in a lot of threads. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-21-2004 07:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Post 34
______________________________________________________________________ Separation of Church and State is nowhere to be found in the Contract, it is an invention of atheists who robbed a theist (Thomas Jefferson) of his words and twisted their meaning to suit their objectives. This country is experiencing total betrayal by the Judicial Branch.God-hating judges are interpreting the Constitution to say a Bible, or a Cross on public lands, or a generic prayer to be an EDORSEMENT of religion and thus a violation of Church and State. ______________________________________________________________________ Post 34______________________________________________________________________ Atheism is a religion, it is against theism. It seeks to force its philosophy and morals onto a christian nation via this ridiculous changing of the contract. I could reference thousands of examples of Founding Fathers and government papers that are strewn with references to the Divine which proves that this current pro-atheist judicial favoring is outlawness ______________________________________________________________________ Post 34______________________________________________________________________ The war on terror has Congress crafting laws to get Islamic religious organizations who funnell money to terrorists. These laws will eventually be used to go after the Church. Idiot John Ashcroft, a theist, is too stupid to envision the damage he is doing in his zeal to nail terrorists. ______________________________________________________________________ Post 53______________________________________________________________________ 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.______________________________________________________________________ Post 58______________________________________________________________________ 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 ?______________________________________________________________________ Post 74 (this content protests the departure from "compelling state interest" in favor of a less stringent "rational basis" as a standard for the State the prove before they can intrude into the affairs of a church)______________________________________________________________________ No peyote eating religious ceremony threatens law and order, it just so happens that this case was used to chip away at the First Amendment AND to remove the strong wording of "compelling state interest" for an easier inroad to go after the "next" church. Scalia, in the opinion, basically said there are too many churches with too many practices and this fact warranted the rights downsizing. Rulings like this will be used as a precedent for further rights erosion, and this too was clearly reasoned in the post you responded to. ______________________________________________________________________ Post 90______________________________________________________________________ Go to Google and type "Colorado Tax Churches". This is an old movement that has recently raised its ugly head in Colorado. The following excerpt lifted from a website best explains the position of churches: "Tax exemption is necessary to protect the government from violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Tax exemption protects the government from excessive entanglement with churches by eliminating the need for a governmental valuation of church property, for an imposition of church-state reporting and auditing requirements, and for potential governmental tax liens and tax foreclosures. Tax exemption does not establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment. There is no primary effect of advancing or sponsoring religion as a general subsidy because tax exemption does not involve the direct transfer of public monies to churches and does not involve use of resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. Tax exemption merely restricts an unconstitutional fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce a desired insulation of churches from the state. 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." END EXCERPT Churches in the U.S. have been granted by Legislature and affirmed by the Supreme Court tax exempt status. (Walz v. Tax Commission 1970) The issue is called "entanglement". What policy, by the State, pursued, would cause the least entanglement of State into Church as to not violate the First Amendment. If State is allowed to tax churches then this intrusion would inevitably result in State having to examine records/seize property for non payment/sell property to collect owed taxes. If State is NOT allowed to tax churches then none of these entanglements would occur. The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment would be better served/least entangled by granting churches tax exempt status. Movements in Colorado and elsewhere are constantly percolating, the need for revenue has many demanding the tax exempt status for churches be dismantled. I want to remind that the exemption is, by ruling, a constitutional RIGHT of the Establishment Clause, which means this right has the status of a "premium right", which means other rights, however valid, cannot be used as an argument to invalidate.______________________________________________________________________ Links from Post 90______________________________________________________________________ entanglement issue: PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning Company The following site evidences the claim of persons/entities/movements that are trying to rescind church tax exemption : http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/churchtx.htm______________________________________________________________________ Post 129 (reiterates the issue of possibly removing property tax exemption right)(notice the courts already ruled it a right and forces that be want that right removed)______________________________________________________________________ The Courts have already ruled that Churches are to be exempt from property taxes. This exemption was elevated to be a First Amendment right because the alternative was the entanglement of the State into church affairs when taxes were not paid. The Courts have ruled long ago that it is better for the First Amendment that churches be not taxed. I brought the issue up to call attention to the fact that various movements from time to time try and get the Courts to rescind this right.______________________________________________________________________ Post 135 (a little principle reiteration)______________________________________________________________________ Rights only exist because government/State are known to not recognize them unless forced to do so. Are you even slightly educated as to why the Constitution was created ? You seem to think government is trustworthy today and that they would never abuse their power. ______________________________________________________________________ Post 142______________________________________________________________________ I am arguing that the issue has already been decided, and it has been decided to be a First Amendment RIGHT (property tax exemption). I already provided evidence that movements are constantly being formed to challenge this right. In response, I argue the subject of this topic that it is (in this case) a potential right erosion ______________________________________________________________________ Post 147 (note that Trixie never argued for or against - only alleged erosions were not posted)______________________________________________________________________ The issue was non payment of taxes (for whatever reason, which I readily admit could be caused by numerous reasons) which would result in the State seizing property to pay the tax and thus this action would result in the Establishment Clause being violated. Again, this was just one reason why the Courts granted the RIGHT to not be taxed. I like and agree with it - you do not. Can we move on ? ______________________________________________________________________ Post 171 (I have mercifully decided to just post the link and not the long cut and paste)______________________________________________________________________ Page not found · GitHub Pages ______________________________________________________________________ Admin: The issue is that Trixie says I have not provided any examples of religious rights erosion. She or anyone can disagree, but to say I have not posted them is a huge difference and a boldface lie. Thanks ! WT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You have not provided any examples of religious rights being eroded.
Please pick one example, only one, that might prove or support your unfounded allegations. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I am trying to find the specific rights you are referring to in your post. Here is what I come up with:
1) Christian symbols being disallowed on federal government property.2) Disallowing the use of peyote in religious cerimonies. 3) The discussed but unexecuted change in tax exemption for churchs 4) The possible use of anti terriorist measures against churchs. What I see is that 3 and 4 may be a possible future erosion but haven't happened. Would you agree that 1 and 2 are the ones your are putting forward as eroded rights? Did I miss any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
The absolute dishonesty of every opponent in this topic is sickening.
None of you have the integrity to disagree with the examples, instead, you make your disagreement point via the denial of any erosion. It is not a matter of opinion. I have presented an avalanche of evidence. I respect none of you, none being Jar, Trixie, Paulk, and especially Ned posing as an objective Admin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Were those points the ones you made or not? The rant doesn't help futher the conversation at all. If something is left out you can point that out.
Are those the examples you are talking about or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In the discussion over taxation of churches I argued that exemption on religious grounds itself creted government involvement in religious matters, because the government placed itself in a position where it had to rule on whether or not an organisation qualified.
In Texas, the State Comptroller has used that ability to take the exemption away from a Unitarian church. There are also suggestions that the Comptroller may be biased against "non-traditional" religions. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/8692961.htm?1c The Comptroller's lawyer, Jesse Ancira is quoted as saying
"The issue as a whole is, do you want to open up a system where there can be abuse or fraud, or where any group can proclaim itself to be a religious organization and take advantage of the exception?" he said.
Well there's a simple alternative. Don't give special privileges to religious organisations. Then nobody can abuse the system - neither claimants nor government officials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Both the examples highlighted by NosyNed were totally disagreed with back at the beginning!!!!!!!!! Go on, check back and you'll see all the posts. Why should we have to disagree with them all over again when nothing has changed?
I see you're now attackingthe posters again and not the posts. Fine by me, it just demonstrates that you have no case to present, no evidence to give and no ability to defend your position. I think the whole point of this post has been answered and the answer seems to be NONE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It wasn't me Trixie . It was my Mr. Hyde side!
I'm not going to get involved in the actual debate. What I wan't to do (as my evil alter ego) was to just summarize and reset the debate. WT feels that whatever rights he has put forward have not been refuted. I would just like to get clear (as succinctly as possible) what those are. Then others can (as succinctly as possible) state their disagreement with them again. The question is still outstanding for WT; what precisely is he claiming are the eroded rights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Sorry about the misID Ned, I was just in too much of a rush, what with one thing and another. Fact is, we've been asking for concrete examples for about 200 posts! Have you ever heard of a programme called The Magic Roundabout?? Bit surreal with an arrogant dog called Dougal, a hare called Dylan drugged out of his brain and a mad bouncing bee called Zebedee. Well, this topic makes me feel as if I'm stuck in the middle of an episode!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024