1st Amendment

[Unkotare]

Does the obama administration see the 1st Amendment as a freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?

 

[Unkotare]

And is hostility toward religion now a central part of the leftist outlook in America?

 

[bobcollum]

And is hostility toward religion now a central part of the leftist outlook in America?

From what I'm told, this has been the case for a long time.

Why so sour, did the Gov't close your church?

 

[Unkotare]

And is hostility toward religion now a central part of the leftist outlook in America?

From what I'm told, this has been the case for a long time.

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

 

[bobcollum]

And is hostility toward religion now a central part of the leftist outlook in America?

From what I'm told, this has been the case for a long time.

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

Define "real America".

I hope you don't describe yourself, my sides can't take it.

 

[catzmeow]

Does the obama administration see the 1st Amendment as a freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?

I don't think they really grasp the first amendment at all. Or the second, for that matter.

Of course, Bush never really grasped Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.

 

[nitroz]

To have freedom of religion, fist you need freedom FROM religion. (If this was a Christian nation, then there would laws be in place that is against other religions, and this wouldn't be America.)

Yes, the 1st amendment goes both ways.

 

[Unkotare]

From what I'm told, this has been the case for a long time.

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

Define "real America".

The parts you fly over or pass through uncomfortably on your way to the next chomsky book party. The America that realizes that family, faith, and values are not things to be mocked or feel embarrassed about. The more than 76% of the country that doesn't accept the idea of hostility toward religion. That sort of thing.

 

[Unkotare]

To have freedom of religion, fist you need freedom FROM religion. (If this was a Christian nation, then there would laws be in place that is against other religions, and this wouldn't be America.)

Yes, the 1st amendment goes both ways.

No, the freedom of religion requires freedom from a government that would impose a state religion or squash religion in general.

 

[Ravi]

The first defends both freedom of and freedom from.

 

[bobcollum]

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

Define "real America".

The parts you fly over or pass through uncomfortably on your way to the next chomsky book party. The America that realizes that family, faith, and values are not things to be mocked or feel embarrassed about. The more than 76% of the country that doesn't accept the idea of hostility toward religion. That sort of thing.

So, you?

 

[Ravi]

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

If one does believe in a god, the government cannot dictate which god they believe in or which religion they practice.

That's freedom of religion.

 

[Ravi]

Bonus: the government can not disallow hostility to religion.

 

[Unkotare]

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

No, that's freedom from government power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does the obama administration see the 1st Amendment as a freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?

The president accepts settled case law with regard to First Amendment jurisprudence.

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

If one does believe in a god, the government cannot dictate which god they believe in or which religion they practice.

That's freedom of religion.

Correct, and as with all other rights, the First Amendment is not absolute.

For example, one’s religious tenets can not be used to exempt or excuse a citizen from abiding an otherwise just law seeking a reasonable goal. See: Employment Division v. Smith (1988).

The mistake many conservatives make is to incorrectly infer that enforcing Establishment Clause doctrine is somehow a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause.

It is not.

The First Amendment places restrictions on government only, not private citizens. A private citizen may freely express his faith in any venue he wishes, provided such expression does not violate the law.

Invalidating laws, measures, or like ordinances which violate the Constitutional principle of separation of church and State is not, therefore, ‘being hostile’ to religion; indeed, Establishment Clause doctrine is designed to preserve religion and not allow faith to become a weapon of the state:

Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The [p594] Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring).

[Government endorsement of religion] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community…

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

No, that's freedom from government power.

One is free from government excess, not its legitimate authority.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From what I'm told, this has been the case for a long time.

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

Define "real America".

I hope you don't describe yourself, my sides can't take it.

70 to 80 percent of US population believes in religion and practices it in some form. But then some of you just aren't to bright.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does the obama administration see the 1st Amendment as a freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?

The president accepts settled case law with regard to First Amendment jurisprudence.

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

If one does believe in a god, the government cannot dictate which god they believe in or which religion they practice.

That's freedom of religion.

Correct, and as with all other rights, the First Amendment is not absolute.

For example, one’s religious tenets can not be used to exempt or excuse a citizen from abiding an otherwise just law seeking a reasonable goal. See: Employment Division v. Smith (1988).

The mistake many conservatives make is to incorrectly infer that enforcing Establishment Clause doctrine is somehow a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause.

It is not.

The First Amendment places restrictions on government only, not private citizens. A private citizen may freely express his faith in any venue he wishes, provided such expression does not violate the law.

Invalidating laws, measures, or like ordinances which violate the Constitutional principle of separation of church and State is not, therefore, ‘being hostile’ to religion; indeed, Establishment Clause doctrine is designed to preserve religion and not allow faith to become a weapon of the state:

Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The [p594] Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring).

[Government endorsement of religion] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community…

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

No, that's freedom from government power.

One is free from government excess, not its legitimate authority.

Also any religion that practices illegal activities of a kind that hurt more then self can be stopped from those practices. SO Indians can use certain herbal drugs for religious ceremonies but a church can not endorse or practice eating of human flesh, slavery, murder, human sacrifice or such illegal activities.

Further new religions that spring up can not claim the right to use drugs, the only reason Indians are exempt is because of hundreds of years of history.

 

[Ravi]

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

No, that's freedom from government power.

It may be both, but it is certainly freedom from religion.

 

[Ravi]

No wonder lefties are so out of touch with real America.

Define "real America".

I hope you don't describe yourself, my sides can't take it.

70 to 80 percent of US population believes in religion and practices it in some form. But then some of you just aren't to bright.

How does that make them less "real?" And while we're on the subject, why do you hate the constitution?

 

[Unkotare]

The government cannot compel anyone to believe in a god or compel anyone to live their life based on the teachings of a god.

That's freedom from religion.

No, that's freedom from government power.

It may be both, but it is certainly freedom from religion.

Your prejudice is confusing you.