jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (77 posts)

Freedom of Religion??????????

  1. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 7 years ago

    I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?

    1. profile image59
      stoneyyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The Christian Reich {Right} doesn't support freedom of religion-unless its theirs.

      Bob Blair, as a Senator, tried to shut down Wicca worship on a US Army base because it was [cough] Satanic.

      I do understand the military Chaplain manuals contain the information to conduct Satanic rituals when needed.

      There are restrictions on rituals.  No animal slaughter for instance.

      Quite a few Christians were enraged, a year or so again when Ellison{?} wanted to, and did take, his oath of office on the Q'uran.

      Before Congress begins a prayer is said.  Christians went apeshit when a Muslim was to give the invocation.  The Christians absolutely refused to let him give the invocation and acted like unspanked toddlers.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I support the freedom of religion to the point that the Constitution requires.

      It's a state issue. Amendment 1 denies CONGRESS to pass laws about religion. And then the 10th amendment denies every single federal branch of government from passing laws about religion, and in the process, makes the issue directly a state issue.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image93
    paradigmsearchposted 7 years ago

    Moderate religion is a branch of philosophy; that is a good thing. Extreme religion is fanaticism and/or power politics; not such a good thing.  The Constitution allows religion to the point that said religion does not violate the rights of other religions.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      no, this is incorrect.

      The constitution fully allows any state to write any religious law it deems necessary.

      I'm an atheist, and so I hate this, and I would love to Amend the document. But it isn't being done, and it likely won't be done.

      But if you actually read the constitution (read the 1st amendment, then the 10th amendment, and then article 1 section 8-10) you'll see that any state has the power to write any law about religion it deems worthy.

  3. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Unfortunately you are wrong, Evan. I quote from Wikipedia on  Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 [1925] -

      Gitlow v. New York's partial reversal of that precedent began a trend toward nearly complete reversal; the Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states...   The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent."

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      yeah, the court can keep smoking it's wacky tobaccy, but English words and sentences still mean things... at least, to me they do.

      The supreme court is wrong. It's clear that they are. And no, i refuse to believe that 9 unelected judges have the power to change the constitution. I simply refuse it.

      States HAVE the power - even if the supreme court doesn't know how to read.

      judges reading a decision that overturns the 10th Amendment COMPLETELY, without there being a congressional move to repeal or amend the Constitution is simply nonsense (not nonsense on YOUR part, nonsense on their part). Judges just do NOT have that power.

      I'm disgusted that they think they do, and that no one has stopped them.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Evan -

        The Constitution says what it says - but it MEANS what the  Supreme Court says it means. The justification for that fact is simply - because the Constitution says so.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          no, that's incorrect - no where in article 3 does it say that the supreme court is allowed to be the sole / end / ultimate being that defines what the Constitution says.

          There is no "supreme interpreter" clause anywhere in the entire document.

          1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
            Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            What do you believe the role of the courts is, under Article III?  What do you think Article III means when it says that the "judicial power" resides with the Supreme Court and with inferior courts?

            Article III

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              so you're saying that the Federal government has the absolute power to determine what the Constitution means?

              that's nonsense - they'll just keep taking rights and powers away from the states

              imagine you get into a contract with your neighbor, and you promise to pay him 10 bucks to mow your lawn. If you allow HIM the power to translate the contract, he'll ask for the ten bucks, but then mow the lawn in 20 years.

              The same is true with the federal/state governments.

              The constitution means what it says, and says what it means.

              1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Evan, you may not like this, but your constitutional arguments are entirely off the wall.  Scalia, the most conservative member of the SC, would think your statement that the SC is not the final arbiter of the Constitution to be preposterous and insane.  And Scalia cares about states rights.  Article III plainly says that the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts decide all cases and controversies under the U.S. Constitution.  I quoted the language for you.  All three branches of the federal government must do their best to interpret and honor the constitution, but whenever there is a disagreement anywhere in the country over what rights a person has under the Constitution (assuming that person has a sufficient interest to have standing), judges decide that.  I pointed you to Article III.  The federal constitution says that the U.S. Supreme Court has supreme judicial power over all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution.  Every source of executive power (state, federal, whatever) in this country acknowledges the authority of the Supreme Court to decide cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (i.e., deciding what the Constitution means when people disagree).  I think you are a very intelligent person, and think many of your opinions have merit, but your opinions on constitutional law are not even in the range of reasonable opinion.  You can wish the Constitution was a certain way, but that does not make it so.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  (sorry for my late reply, life happened)

                  Ok, so here's the thing. You're stepping half a step too far with Article 3

                  here's the quote that we're debating over: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

                  this clearly does not say that the supreme court can alter the meaning of the Constitution. What it says it that the "judicial power shall extend to all cases... arising under this constitution"

                  There can be no way that "taking away the state's tenth amendment right to pass laws regarding religion" could ever have been a legitimate "case... arising under this Constitution". And even if this were true, the Supreme Court lacks the power to take away said rights - that is a legislative act that would require an Amendment to the Constitution.

                  I can see your confusion - the document says something very similar to "translate the Constitution" but it merely says that the Supreme Court is allowed to decide (basically) the Constitutionality of cases that arise under the steps laid out further in Article 3.

                  1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                    Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    No one said anything about altering the meaning of the Constitution.  No one said about anyone "taking away" constitutionally protected rights.  You disagreed with the proposition that under our system and the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what the Constitution means.  Your entire post is a series of circular arguments, i.e., "there's no way that the SC can "take[] away the state's tenth amendment right to pass laws regarding religion."  Since a state has no 10th amendment right to do so, the SC is doing nothing of the sort.  It is interpreting the Constitution and its decisions are binding and controlling on the other two branches of government.  I am not "confused," I address the effect of controlling precedent under our Constitution on a regular basis.  This is not a controversial point...your argument is at odds with a basic understanding of constitutional law and governmental process that has operated since the Constitution itself.  I respect your political beliefs and they have a place in policy arguments.  But you repeatedly post things about Constitutional law that are simply incorrect.

              2. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                BTW, if I wasn't clear...yes the federal government (through the Supreme Court) has absolute power to decide what the federal constitution means and everything is subordinate to the federal government in those areas where the constitution gives the federal government authority.  This isn't even controversial.  I appreciate that you have political beliefs, and you can hope that the law was otherwise, but many of your posts on constitutional law seem a little crackpot.   

                To argue why the federal courts should not be able to define the federal constitution, you argue "that's nonsense - they'll just keep taking rights and powers away from the states."  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is so or even make it nonsense. 

                I respect that you have libertarian political views.  And there are certainly issues of policy where these views have a place.  But your constitutional analysis is flawed.  There are many many disagreements over constitutional law, but you are not even within the realm of reasonable.  And I do not mean to make an argument from authority...but for whatever it is worth I can tell you with great certainty how the judicial system works today, and has worked since the Constitution was adopted (you are entitled to think it works incorrectly).  Understand that I have briefed issues of constitutional law to the U.S. Supreme Court (but never personally argued there yet).  I have both briefed and argued issues of constitutional law to numerous state appellate courts and federal appellate courts, including several state supreme courts.  The whole system could be wrong but I want you to know that when you keep schooling hubbers of what the constitution means your views are so extreme that they are not even part of the debate.  Again, you can think I and all of the conservative and liberal constitutional scholars, lawyers and judges across the spectrum are wrong.  That's fine.

                1. profile image59
                  stoneyyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Why is it political office holders do not defend and uphold the constitution as they've sworn to?

                  'W' had great glee in using it for toilet paper.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    agreed

                2. Tim_511 profile image77
                  Tim_511posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  The Constitution was written in plain English for all to understand, not just some high court.  The court has the power to rule on Constitutional issues, but they do not have the power to deny the plain meaning of the Constitution.

                  We have three branches of government for a reason.  If the court had as much power as you give it, we would only have one branch.

                  1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                    Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Just as everyone can read the Constitution everyone can disagree on its meaning.  But when that disagreement results in a live case or controversy, our judicial branch resolves those controversies.  You are correct, we also have two other branches of government.  They have different functions.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    damn right!

                  3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    all animals are created equal...

                    but the supreme court demands that some animals are MORE equal than others.

        2. Greek One profile image76
          Greek Oneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          the Constitution only means what this guy and his friends say it does...

          http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/01/22/week_in_crazy_clarence_thomas/md_horiz.jpg

      2. Sylvie Strong profile image59
        Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Evan, the Constitution itself states that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what it means.  You can disagree with a Supreme Court decision...I know I have.  But Supreme Court precedent defines what and what is not constitutional.  Any result otherwise would itself be contrary to the Constitution.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "the Constitution itself states that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what it means."

          ... no ... it doesn't... Unless you can point to the quote in the Constitution which says that... then... your argument is wrong.

          no where in the document does it make that claim whatsoever. There's no way that the founders would have agreed to that.

          "hey, let's wage a war against a tyrannical power... ... .. and then just establish a new one!"

          1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
            Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Evan, I already quoted the plain language of Article III.  As stated in Article III, the Supreme Court is the highest authority in the "judicial power" in our government.  I also quoted what Article III says the "judicial power" is.  Go back and look at my post.  In short, it is deciding every case and controversy arising under the federal constitution.  I can't believe you keep arguing this point.  Anyone can disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, and I personally disagree with a number.  But the Supreme Court is the supreme judicial authority on any dispute in the country on what the federal constitution means.  There are disagreements on what the Constitution means, but this is not a gray area.

      3. Sylvie Strong profile image59
        Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Evan, FWIW, your 10th amendment analysis assumes that some act that is prohibited to the federal government is necessarily granted to the states.  That isn't so.  The 10th amendment says that powers that the Constitution does not "delegate" to the federal government reside with state governments or the individuals.  There is a difference between not delegating an area of law to the federal government and forbidding the federal government from doing something.  Just because the federal government is prohibited from doing something does not necessarily mean that the Constitution is giving a state a green light to do it. 

        I have pointed out in other posts that the SC has widely considered this language as a truism, based both in the historical context and alternative language that was rejected by the drafters, and because it states the obvious (which of course is what a truism is).  But even by its plain terms, I think your argument is incorrect because of this distinction between prohibition and delegation I identified above. 

        Moreover, the 14th amendment requires states to award individuals substantive due process.  What do "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean?  The Constitution does not define it.  But the Supreme Court has found that the protections afforded under the first amendment have the character of substantive due process.  This is what would prevent a state from stripping individuals of religious rights or freedom of speech.    Don't buy it if you don't want, but that's the argument.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          let's look at the tenth amendment again

          "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

          The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution....

          ... nor prohibited by [the constitution] to the states...

          ... are reserved to the states respectively...

          ... or to the people.

          No where in that reading does it say that "the federal government is allowed to do what it wants unless the states prohibit the federal government from doing so".

          In fact, it says just the opposite: "the powers not delegated to the US by the constitution... are reserved to the states..."

          Thus, ANY power NOT granted to the US government is reserved to the states.

          1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
            Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Evan, I did not say the below quotation (at the bottom of this email)...at least I don't think I did.  The prohibition comes from the Constitution itself.  If the Constitution says that the federal government cannot abridge freedom of religion, this does not mean that state governments (or "the people) can.  There is a difference between what powers are delegated to the federal government and what the federal government is prohibited from doing.  The 14th amendment makes clear that the federal constitution requires states to afford substantive (and procedural) due process to their citizens.  What substantive due process is is not defined by the constitution.  The Supreme Court has construed it to mean, inter alia, the protections afforded under the First Amendment.  This is why Oregon cannot promulgate laws restricting the freedom of speech or religion.  I know you have said that you do not regard Supreme Court precedent as persuasive, but under our system the SC not only defines what the Constitution means buts its rulings are binding on all lower courts.  The constitution is less than clear in many respects, and was intentionally drafted that way unfortunatly because of the conflicts at the time of its drafting between various factions, including those favoring a strong national government and those that wanted a more decentralized confederacy of states.  I know you disagree with the precedent, and believe that the Constitution should be interpreted a different way.     

            ...

            "No where in that reading does it say that "the federal government is allowed to do what it wants unless the states prohibit the federal government from doing so".

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Re-reading your comment - indeed, i think i mis-interpreted what you said.
              All apologies.

              I thought you were saying that those powers not delegated to the states were left to the fed. We both agree that would be incorrect.

              You WERE saying that if a power is prohibited to the federal government, it should be prohibited to the states. (a quote from you: "If the Constitution says that the federal government cannot abridge freedom of religion, this does not mean that state governments (or "the people) can.")

              this is incorrect.

              No where in the tenth amendment can your argument be supported. IF it's prohibited to the federal government... then...

              ... ...

              ... it's prohibited to the federal government. That's it. It means that the states didn't want a bunch of twits in Washington telling them how to do the thing in question.

              Due process is discussed as far back as the magna carta - it basically means the legal judgement of peers. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

              Once again, you are relying on a biased party to define it's own boundaries. This is an absolutely foolish thing to do. I reject the idea that the Supreme Court is the only entity entitled to translate the Constitution. To do so would be to allow tyranny.   

              *** no where in the Constitution is the Supreme court given the authority to directly translate the Constitution -- and it is ESPECIALLY not given the final say in doing so***

              1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You are close.  Actually, what I said was that actions forbidden to the federal government are not necessarily permitted to the states.  They may be permitted by the states or forbidden to the states, it depends on what the action is.  As is relevant here, it depends on whether the federal prohibition falls within substantive due process.  Your definition of due process is incorrect.  It has both a procedural character (i.e., a fair hearing and a right to defend yourself), and a substantive character, i.e., life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness.  The Constitution does not define what substantive due process means, but the 14th amendment makes clear that states are forbidden from depriving their citizens of it.  The Constitution also says that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means whenever there is a dispute about it with parties that have standing.  And the Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, that the protections for speech and religion found in the 1st amendment help define what substantive due process is...i.e., they are part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This is why, under controlling precedent, states must afford all of their citizens the protections afforded by the 1st amendment.

                I have also pointed out, and you have not addressed, that the language in the 10th amendment that you relied upon has been rejected by the Supreme Court for over 50 years.  Why?   Because it is a truism and has no legal effect.  I have quoted the relevant precedent to you.  The federal government not only has the powers expressly delegated to it, but also those implied powers it requires per the Necessary and Proper Clause (which the 10th amendment does not modify). 

                At the end of the day, most of your arguments are policy arguments.  You come from the perspective that a federal government is bad and a state government is good (why state governments are any less tyrannical is something of a mystery) and then argue that the Constitution must support you because otherwise you will not get the result you desire.  So you'll argue things like..."it can't be so, or tyranny will prevail...or the feds will usurp the states, etc."  These aren't direct quotations obviously.  My response is, you are entitled to an opinion that the system is not  the way you want, and your policy arguments should be given weight, but only as a policy argument.  They are not persuasive as constitutional arguments.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I have read Article 3 almost 15 times now - looking, searching, deliberating for a "supreme court can translate the constitution" clause. it doesn't exist.

                  But wait a second-  Amendment 11 amends Article 3, it must be there!!!... nothing. In fact, the 11th amendment further restricts the Supreme Court.

                  Could it be in Article 4? The one talking about the states? ... nope... nothing there.

                  Wait!! 4 was amended by the 13th amendment - it must be there!!... nope...

                  It doesn't exist.

                  Until you can quote the Constitution where it says so, i'm afraid i will have to ask you to stop making things up; it takes too much effort to search for the tooth fairy.

                  1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                    Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Read Article III another 15 times if you must.  I've reposted the relevant language already.  The Supreme Court is the highest authority in the exercise of judicial power.  The judicial power is defined in Article III as all cases and controversies under our constitution.  This means that whenever anyone with standing has a dispute over issues involving the federal constitution the supreme court can ultimately decide how to resolve that dispute (at which court level it starts and whether it begins in the state or federal courts is more of a matter of jurisdiction).  The rulings of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower federal and state courts and they must follow Supreme Court precedent.  Anyone within or without the government can have an opinion and interpret the Constitution however they want but if there is ever a disagreement over the meaning of the Constitution this dispute will end up in our courts.  I have asked you what you think the "judicial power" means as used in the Constitution to help you suss out the plain meaning of that term.  You did not answer my question. There are lots of areas of debate on constitutional issues, but you are not on the playing field.  I've already explained why your 10th amendment and Article III analysis is deeply flawed in this thread and in others.  I do not know what else to say.  You can keep saying you don't see it in the Constitution but I have pointed out where your reasoning is flawed from both a textual sense (such as how you have conflated what has been delegated to the federal government with what the federal government has been prohibited from doing) and how your arguments are contrary to controlling legal authority.  With respect, I would work on your tone.  I have tried to add to this discussion from a perspective informed by working with these issues on a regular basis.  Disagree with me if you want but don't accuse me of "making things up" or searching for the "tooth fairy."  There are very credible constitutional scholars that are textualists and strictly hue to the plain meaning and text of the constitution.  They would call your arguments nonsense.  Believe whatever you want...it is clear that you are going to keep interpreting the Constitution however you want and will ignore any arguments otherwise because they contradict your reading.  One reason we have courts is because people disagree.

              2. Sylvie Strong profile image59
                Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Evan, part of your confusion may stem from a lack of historical understanding of the circumstances under which the Constitution was drafted and adopted.  I think you have some of it, but not all.  Not everyone was against a strong federal government.  As I am sure you know, we had a number of states operating under the Articles of Confederation prior to the constitution.  Many, people like George Washington and John Madison, felt that our nation could not function effectively under that system and favored a strong national government.  When the constitution was drafted, there was significant conflict between various interests, including interests that favored a strong national government and interests that were concerned with states rights.  So you keep approaching this as if the framers of the constitution were a unified front, shell-shocked from the "tyranny" of the British government and intent on maintaining a group of strong state governments.  That's not true at all.  BTW, some of them viewed state governments with suspicion as well and were concerned about rights of individuals as against both state and federal governments.  Indeed, in our subsequent history there are many instances where at least some citizens have found their state governments to be a source of tyranny and the federal government to be a source of hope.  At the time of the constitution, there was also belief that the bills of rights in state constitutions could provide an even greater protection than the backstop provided by the federal bill of rights.  This is why your argument that state governments can freely deprive their citizens of freedom of speech and religion turns history on its head.  Much of the way the Constitution was drafted shows a certain genius in trying to navigate the tension between competing factions.  This is evident with the 10th amendment, where states rights factions attempted to emasculate the federal government by arguing that it should contain language that would limit the powers of the federal government to only those expressly provided under the Constitution.  Those voices lost the day, and the 10th amendment as drafted omitted limitations to express powers and did not modify the Necessary and Proper Clause.  You keep arguing that the Constitution cannot mean what the Supreme Court says it does because the framers would never have agreed to it.  I think that comes from a mistaken assumption that they had a unified view that state government was good and a strong federal government was bad.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  indeed, Alexander Hamilton wanted George Washington to be the new Monarch. This was obviously never going to happen.

                  But, a state is allowed any power not stripped of them in article 1 section 10 - that's what the document says.

                  your statement: "At the time of the constitution, there was also belief that the bills of rights in state constitutions could provide an even greater protection than the backstop provided by the federal bill of rights.  This is why your argument that state governments can freely deprive their citizens of freedom of speech and religion turns history on its head.  "

                  this sounds all fine and dandy, but we're talking about the first amendment, and it says specifically that CONGRESS may not pass any laws.

                  I've made this argument a million times, and i won't change my mind --- until you can show me somewhere in the Constitution where it says one of the following:

                  1- "The supreme court may amend this document through judicial decisions"

                  2- "No state may pass a law respecting a religion"

                  3- "no form of state or federal government may pass a religion"

                  4- or if you could point to a clause in each state's constitution saying "this state will not pass any religiously biased law"

                  Until one of these clauses is discovered, then, unfortunately, a state may pass a religious-biased law.

                  The 10th Amendment DEMANDS it. And I reject that the Supreme court be allowed to amend the document by simply deciding a court case -- I'm still waiting on the constitutional quote that says this!!!! I'm wa~~aiti~~ing!!

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          oh, and about the 14th amendment -it clearly states that NO STATE shall do XYZ.

          Thus, these are powers prohibited to the states, and also not delegated to the federal government, thus they belong to the people (according to the 10th amendment).

    2. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This is the problem. The fourteenth Amendment GUTTED  the 10th. This was NOT on accident(IMO). It was loaded with good stuff while harming existing provisions.

      1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
        Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It didn't need to.  The 10th was stillborn.

  4. C.A. Johnson profile image70
    C.A. Johnsonposted 7 years ago

    Religious freedom is an entitlement to US citizens and one to be respected regardless of the religion. However, there is a fine line in religion where extremist and fanatics take over to achieve a not always admirable position.

    When sedition begins to cloud religion leaving just a religious front and the intentions turn to causing damage and destruction in the name of said religion then the processes of treason begin. When quiet battles erupt between religions for the sake of religion we end up having quiet little wars under the guise of religious freedom.

    While I am all for each to their own, I am very well aware that small gestures that are considered just controversial can erupt into bigger problems.

    Each person's faith, regardless of the faith, is a relationship between them an their god. No government of any sort should ever interfere with that relationship unless it crosses the lines and becomes redefined.

  5. JON EWALL profile image64
    JON EWALLposted 7 years ago

    HUBBERS
    The argument is not about freedom of religion but the CONSTRUCTION of a religious structure in a sensitive location near a historical event- 911. The two are not the same for comparison. The Constitution protects one and city regulations enforce the other.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      the argument IS about freedom of religion and the federal level. It's either that, or just simply property rights. Either way, because the OP is discussing Obama, then whatever it is, it's about the federal level of government.

      Obama has NO power to do ANYTHING in this situation - reread article 2 of the Constitution.

      Then, read amendment 1 and article 1 to see that CONGRESS has no power.

      Then look through Article 3 to see that THE SUPREME COURT has no power.

      Then look at Amendment 10 to see that it is 100% a state decision to allow the building to be built.

      I would imagine that, at this point, it would be pretty much suicide for the people to build the darn mosque, but... whatev.

      1. JON EWALL profile image64
        JON EWALLposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Evan G Rogers
        '' it is 100% a state decision to allow the building to be built.''
        THE CITY controls the zoning and the right to approve or deny the project.If the city had a public hearing as they should have done, many of the questions being asked today would have given the people their say before the city made their decisions.
        Let's not be naive, political behind the scenes activity was involved from all levels of government.

        1. Sylvie Strong profile image59
          Sylvie Strongposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The city did have a public hearing.  Members from the local community came and some voiced their opposition.

  6. Joe Badtoe profile image61
    Joe Badtoeposted 7 years ago

    Ok

    Enough

    I have used up one of my priviliged access swipe cards to one of the God's.

    I have explained this debate and this is what he has suggested.

    Build the Community Cente (see even this god didn't call it a mosque)

    Let the builders be muslims as they have the plans which means of course that Allah is the architect and project manager.
    the electricians be Hindu's
    the plumbers be sikhs
    the roofers be jewish
    the security be buddhists (non violent or aggressive)
    the christians provide the labour
    the rastafarians run the canteen
    the scientologists can negotiate the contracts

    All other religions not mentioned above will be placed on the temporary labor list and offered work when it arises.

    Any disputes wil be handled by the God I have access to (on this project my God is acting as an independent advisor) but there will be no board meetings and no fact to face discussions and definately no lawyers.

    1. Dave Barnett profile image54
      Dave Barnettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let's see. The builders will throw bricks and do suicide bombings against the jewish roofers, while the Hindis and  Sikhs bash, and whip each other with plumbing fixtures and heavey gauge wiring, while the christians run around telling everyone else they are doing their jobs all wrong, the rRastas are so high, they forgot where they left the key to the front door, and if Tom Cruise is one of the negotiators, he must be FULLY medicated. And most other than Islamics will disagree as to what to call the architect. Throw in some Iranians and Pakistanis and I'm sure we can manage a nuclear exchange.

  7. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    There should be religious freedom to the limit of not hurting other religions..  Religious fanatics deserve no freedom.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image85
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Ow. He looks like he's in pain.

    1. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Doesn't look like that to me...

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thats his WTF look as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are escorted into chambers.

  9. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Too bad we cannot change it to, "Freedom from religion." wink

    1. profile image59
      stoneyyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Freedom from religion is the flip side.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Can you explain?

        1. profile image59
          stoneyyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Certainly.  It protects Christians from being forced to convert to another sect or another religion entirely.

          Recall that in England during the 1400's, 1500's, and 1600's there were bloody purges and imprisonments based on what sect of Christianity the current King of England was.

          That's the entire reason the Founding Fathers put in the 'wall.'  It was to prevent the blood of religious strife from staining our shores.

          Consider the bloody fighting of Shia and Shiite in Iraq.  Consider the depredations of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

          Sectarian warfare was part of the 'Troubles' in Ireland and the 'marches' and 'counter marches' of the Catholics and the Protestants.

  10. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    There is nothing like "freedom of religion".  Freedom is meant for free movement in everything including religion.  We can offer religious freedom to all those who reciprocate in their own areas. To those who speak differently in their area and differently in our area, there should be no freedom of religion.

 
working