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

But the decision did, in effect, lower the long standing threshold of "compelling state interest" to "rational basis". This establishes a lower threshold for state intrusion, and whether it was the intent or not, the fact remains that the First Amendment in this regard has been undermined/weakened.

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.

You have deliberately chose not to recognize the departure from "compelling state interest" and instead you remain focused on the narrow drug issue.The departure sets the stage and gives precedent to further erode the First Amendment. What rational basis did this case justify the reduction of compelling state interest TO rational basis ?Because I have not introduced other possible examples of rights erosion does not mean there are none. I will, very shortly, post more.I am curious as to your general views about the State and its role in rights preservation.Do you believe the State respects rights naturally ? If so, why the need for a Constitution ?These "questions" are not meant to trap you, only provide a launching point to air your opinion.Give me 24 hours to evidence additional religious rights erosion.

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.

From a website, to further explain my position:On June 25, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and declared RFRA unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had misused its enforcement powers of the Free Exercise Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment by altering the meaning of the clause, and had violated the separation of powers between the branches of government. In other words, the Supreme Court is reserving the right to have the final say on all matters pertaining to constitutional interpretation, ignoring precedent in Congress redressing errors in judgement by the court. 18 (See for instance the Civil Rights Act, which effectively nullified several Supreme Court decisions, incorporated the entire Bill of Rights and made it applicable to the individual states.)The current situation, then, provides for strict scrutiny of the law and investigation of less drastic means available to further the government’s interests only when religion is burdened in a direct, substantial way. The conditions set forth in RFRA are then applicable when the law affects religious practice in a direct way, but not when it affects such practices in an indirect or incidental way. In that situation, the law must only be shown to be neutral toward religion and generally applicable (as found in the Smith decision.) This is a fairly ominous development, since laws must clearly demonstrate bias or blatantly target religious practice for such discrimination to be found unconstitutional. Given that very few examples of such direct bias can be expected (judging from the experience of the past few decades), it is precisely the unintentional and indirect discrimination that will present the greatest difficulty in the near future. 19 As we become a much more diverse society, as the familiar and the unfamiliar collide, conflict in this area is to be expected.In summary, the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, with respect to religious accommodation in employment, are rather clearly defined by the Civil Rights Act and ensuing decisions by the courts. While much of the responsibility necessarily lies with the employer, the employee must provide the information that an accomodation is needed. In addition, an employee has an obligation to work with the employer on finding an accommodation that is reasonable. The issue of the government’s responsibility in protecting such accommodation remains less clear. If Congress wishes to re-establish the principles of religious liberty that preceded the 1990s, a more narrowly tailored version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, one that the Supreme Court would be inclined to let stand, should be considered.

Paulk writes:
______________________________________________________________________
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.
______________________________________________________________________You are angry at me period. To say what was offered is weak reveals your mind is made up, which means your only motive is revenge for the whipping you took in the Resurrection topic.There is blood in your words, you are out for it, seething underneath.I could care less in debating with you and your petty animosities/grudges.Please just go on and get lost.

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.

Why are you not giving us other examples of religious rights erosion? I'm interested to hear about them, but so far I've learnt nothing from you, just some vague assertions about what you "feel" is happening, but nothing concrete, except for a very ambiguous one which may have been based on drugs law rather than any anti-religious motivation.More often, you will see discrimination based on religion, rather than religious rights erosion, but that's just from my personal experience and where I live. The fact that we had to pack up and leave our village for an entire day with a small baby in tow just so some people could exercise their right to take part in what they considered a religious tradition worries me more than any assumed and unevidenced erosion of religious rights.

Must have been the Annual Haggis Cookoff. The same thing happened to me when I lived in South Georgia every year during Chitlin Chompin Days and down here in Texas during the Meneudo Marshalling.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Totally off topic, but a wee explanation for jar. The huge Orange Order Parade decided to march through our small village. The day started badly when the bandsmen from Belfast attacked the coach carrying local bandsmen. As Roman Catholics, we got out of there as 12,500 Orangemen swaggered through the village. Later that night, I was physically attacked in my car with my toddler on board because I was playing a U2 tape and U2 come from Dublin. In other words sectarian bigotry. Gardens and houses in my part of the village (mainly Catholic) were vandalised, mine was full of shitty disposable nappies, beer cans and broken glass. The marchers claim that the right to march is a traditional religious right and so it continues year after year. This sort of thing worries me more than nut-guzzling!

OTThank you mam. That was kinda what I expected. May GOD look over you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you feel the case already offered was ambiguous, then this means no case would be otherwise in your ability to comprehend rights departures.I have repeatedly posted replies explaining the significance, you have dismissed all with this flimsy post.Why don't you tell me where you got the idea that I would not post more examples ?

Utter rubbish, Willow and you know it!!!!!!!!!!! Note my words Now note again the two REALLY IMPORTANT words That means "up til now" or "previously" or "in previous posts". It says bugger all about future posts. So what is this about? Why don't you tell me where you got the idea that I even remotely HINTED that I was saying anything about future posts? Maybe it would be a good idea if you stuck to criticising what I actually said, rather than what you think I said.As for your little dig about my "flimsy post", to me it was anything but flimsy. Neither did I dismiss your information, but with all the information available to me it seems that the issue is more about drugs law than prohibiting a practice BECAUSE it is religious. There's an ocean of difference between the two. I'm not dismissing what you said, I'm disagreeing with you and explaining my reasons for that. I've also asked you for other examples of religious rights being eroded and am willing to consider each example you give solely on individual merit. I don't have a closed mind on this subject, but neither am I psychic, so until you tell me what instances you're talking about, there's not a lot I can do in agreeing or disagreeing with you, is there?

Hi Trixie:Sorry I screwed things up. Post 78 of this topic says I will add more stuff in less than 24 hours.Thanks,WillowtreeP.S.What does "bugger" mean ?Is "learnt" correct in England, just curious ?

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 EXCERPTChurches 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.There are many small attempts by private individuals and public entities to circumvent tax exempt status and get courts to chip away and allow more entanglement. But, for the most part, the right remains intact. I offered this evidence to say/predict that the attempts to justify entanglement will eventually succeed.By his own public admission, Dr. Scott pastors one of the richest churches in the world. While fighting to the death for the exemption right, Dr. Scott voluntarily pays taxes on all church properties. Dr. Scott pays the tax because he is convinced the Courts will justify entanglement and when it happens the ruling will have no ill effect on his church.Various link sources:Page not found – Religion Onlineentanglement issue:PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning CompanyThe following site evidences the claim of persons/entities/movements that are trying to rescind church tax exemption :http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/churchtx.htm