Ravi
Diamond Member
I'm having trouble following that, too.
What happens normally when two amendments collide?
What happens normally when two amendments collide?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm having trouble following that, too.
What happens normally when two amendments collide?
No Two Amendments do collide. To remove a power or right granted in the Constitution ( whether original or amended) an Amendment must address the issue and be clear as to what it does or does not allow. Any Amendment approved later is binding so if it removes some of an earlier right or power it does not conflict at all.
prayer is not a natural remedy. wishful thinking is not alternative medicine. Christians are not usually into neato new age healing methods using crystals and chakras.
Would this be any different if I let my kid die because sprinkling chicken blood on her head after the ritual sacrifice didn't, in fact, cure her cancer?
No Two Amendments do collide. To remove a power or right granted in the Constitution ( whether original or amended) an Amendment must address the issue and be clear as to what it does or does not allow. Any Amendment approved later is binding so if it removes some of an earlier right or power it does not conflict at all.
Okay, but how do you justify denying someone's life? That's what it seems on the face of it these people did.
You are aware religion can be used to prevent transfusions?
This is just another example that, in my opinion, supports my moderate, relativistic, situational ethics and philosophy. There are very few, if any, absolutes. The question is not whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof The Constitution states no exception. It seems pretty absolutist to me. Yet, situations like this might come up from time to time.
Do you think that there should be limits to the first amendment for cases like the one of an 11-year-old child? If so, do we need a constitutional amendment? Without an amendment, it looks as though Wisconsin law protecting such a child is unconstitutional in some instances.
So murder is OK as long as I am a follower of a death cult? Are my religious rights being violated if I am not allowed to blow myself up in public in the name of Allah?
sorry, that logic doesn't fly.
I don't think that would be a good defence. What if human sacrifice were required as part of someone's religion? That wouldn't be a defence to a charge of murder. The secular law must be more authoritative than religious laws or customs.
That's an excellent point and really yet one other reason that the separation of church and state should exist.
According to a cold literal wording of the first amendment, you are allowed to do those things.
But I think not and this is my reasoning. Murder is a state crime (I know there are federal variants but I'm not talking about the murder of an FBI Agent for example). The prohibition against murder in the state statutes isn't unconstitutional.
As far as I'm aware no state has made religious conviction a defence against a charge of murder. Of course, as always, I'll stand corrected.
So if your child gets sick and you do not take them to a doctor your guilty of murder if they die? I guess our prisons should be full of parents then.
According to a cold literal wording of the first amendment, you are allowed to do those things.