Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[manifold]

no one, can legitimately use the first amendment religion clause, without using BOTH parts of the clause....those on the right or the left that try to use one part of the clause to justify their political standing, without weighing the other religion clause, is on thin ice....

You're entitled to an opinion that runs contrary to SCOTUS rulings if you like.

I have a few of those myself.

i don't think this position runs contrary to the SCOTUS rulings....

you need to prove that it does....

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

 

[Care4all]

Let's just take the first few of these decisions...
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
(arranged by date)

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Both clauses were weighed against eachother...the right of the individual for free expression and the establishment clause.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
again, both clauses were used and weighed against eachother....the free exercise of an individual's religious beliefs and the establishment clause.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

both clauses were taken in to consideration.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

both clauses were taken in to consideration

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
again, both clauses were weighed against eachother

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
both clauses again, were weighed against eachother.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

again, both clauses are weighed against eachother.

Freedom of religion and the establishment clauses were taken in to consideration, in ALL of the cases above...

 

[manifold]

Ok Care, I get your point and I agree.

However, I still maintain my position vis-a-vis the talking point I've been 'bitching' about.

 

[manifold]

Ok Care, I get your point and I agree.

However, I still maintain my position vis-a-vis the talking point I've been 'bitching' about.

Actually Care, in a couple of those they specify the establishment clause as the reason for unconstitutionality.


For example:

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

 

[Care4all]

Ok Care, I get your point and I agree.

However, I still maintain my position vis-a-vis the talking point I've been 'bitching' about.

Actually Care, in a couple of those they specify the establishment clause as the reason for unconstitutionality.


For example:

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

it violates the establishment clause and does not inhibit the individual's right to exercise freedom of religion, therefore, their decision is correct.

not having the display does not stop individuals from practicing their own religion...

I still stick with both clauses, having to be considered.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok Care, I get your point and I agree.

However, I still maintain my position vis-a-vis the talking point I've been 'bitching' about.

Actually Care, in a couple of those they specify the establishment clause as the reason for unconstitutionality.


For example:

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

it violates the establishment clause and does not inhibit the individual's right to exercise freedom of religion, therefore, their decision is correct.

not having the display does not stop individuals from practicing their own religion...

I still stick with both clauses, having to be considered.

And that's where I think the SCOTUS got it wrong. I don't think a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates anybody's rights nor is it an establishment of religion. It is a symbol of a religious event celebrated by most Americans and nothing more. Art is art regardless of the subject matter and it is ridiculous to think that religious art is somehow more compelling than any other art to those who don't subscribe to the particular religious beliefs implied in the artwork.

To me singing Handel's Messiah is no more indoctrinating than is singing "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" or "Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer" or any other imagery. If we start denying any image or concept that might even possibly create a thought in somebody's head we would have to disallow almost all music, art, and literary subjects.

However, if ONLY a nativity scene was allowed and an equaly tasteful Minnorah or some other symbol of a religious festival was disallowed, then the establishment clause might carry more weight.

 

[Care4all]

Actually Care, in a couple of those they specify the establishment clause as the reason for unconstitutionality.


For example:

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

it violates the establishment clause and does not inhibit the individual's right to exercise freedom of religion, therefore, their decision is correct.

not having the display does not stop individuals from practicing their own religion...

I still stick with both clauses, having to be considered.

And that's where I think the SCOTUS got it wrong. I don't think a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates anybody's rights nor is it an establishment of religion. It is a symbol of a religious event celebrated by most Americans and nothing more. Art is art regardless of the subject matter and it is ridiculous to think that religious art is somehow more compelling than any other art to those who don't subscribe to the particular religious beliefs implied in the artwork.

To me singing Handel's Messiah is no more indoctrinating than is singing "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" or "Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer" or any other imagery. If we start denying any image or concept that might even possibly create a thought in somebody's head we would have to disallow almost all music, art, and literary subjects.

However, if ONLY a nativity scene was allowed and an equaly tasteful Minnorah or some other symbol of a religious festival was disallowed, then the establishment clause might carry more weight.

well, i agree with you....but I also can see that the SC thought differently and used both clauses, weighed against eachother, in their decision process...

in another case, they permitted a scene that had a manora, and tree and something else in their OUTSIDE display on city hall's property....

they have been sorta wishy washy on this....

 

[manifold]

they have been sorta wishy washy on this....

As Ravi likes to say, 'clear as mud'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I repeat my challenge, and extend it to anyone willing to accept.

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

Again, since you ignored it the first time. Many different communities have attempted to pass laws that stop Jehovah's Witnesses from knocking on doors, and they have all failed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lower courts sided with the town, ruling that the ordinance was a valid “content-neutral” regulation that didn’t interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But in an opinion handed down on June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court saw it very differently. In a rare display of agreement, eight of the nine justices voted to strike down the Stratton law as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in the majority opinion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“It is offensive – not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society – that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” [/FONT]

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no one, can legitimately use the first amendment religion clause, without using BOTH parts of the clause....those on the right or the left that try to use one part of the clause to justify their political standing, without weighing the other religion clause, is on thin ice....

Exactly.

Though I could argue that the 1st actually applies only to Congress, I also have to remember that the 14th made it clear that all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply even to state governments. My personal belief is that some this has been carried to far in banning holiday displays on public property. It goes way overboard when HOAs ban such displays on private property, even if it is legal.

I have never heard of anyone objecting to getting a paid holiday if they are not Christians, though I will admit it is possible. I wonder how atheist would react if we allowed people only to take a paid holiday of they actually celebrated the religion associated with it. I can't see any legal argument to make that position unconstitutional, though I am sure some lawyer would be able to think of something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually Care, in a couple of those they specify the establishment clause as the reason for unconstitutionality.


For example:

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

it violates the establishment clause and does not inhibit the individual's right to exercise freedom of religion, therefore, their decision is correct.

not having the display does not stop individuals from practicing their own religion...

I still stick with both clauses, having to be considered.

And that's where I think the SCOTUS got it wrong. I don't think a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates anybody's rights nor is it an establishment of religion. It is a symbol of a religious event celebrated by most Americans and nothing more. Art is art regardless of the subject matter and it is ridiculous to think that religious art is somehow more compelling than any other art to those who don't subscribe to the particular religious beliefs implied in the artwork.

To me singing Handel's Messiah is no more indoctrinating than is singing "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" or "Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer" or any other imagery. If we start denying any image or concept that might even possibly create a thought in somebody's head we would have to disallow almost all music, art, and literary subjects.

However, if ONLY a nativity scene was allowed and an equaly tasteful Minnorah or some other symbol of a religious festival was disallowed, then the establishment clause might carry more weight.

That is where it gets a little tricky. Why is the National Christmas Tree legal, and a creche in a town square illegal? I would ask our resident legal expert manifold, but he seems to feel he doesn't have to answer pointed questions if they come from me.

 

[manifold]

QW,

You're trying to squeeze 100 lbs of fail into a 50 lb sack. Seriously, I'm actually starting to feel embarassed for you.

 

[jillian]

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

jehovah's witnesses are sent to your door by the government?

the government funds the jehovah's witnesses?

the jehovah's witnesses are hassling you on government premises?

the answer to all three questions above is "no". and THAT is what the first amendment guarantees.

 

[Ravi]

I repeat my challenge, and extend it to anyone willing to accept.

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

Again, since you ignored it the first time. Many different communities have attempted to pass laws that stop Jehovah's Witnesses from knocking on doors, and they have all failed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lower courts sided with the town, ruling that the ordinance was a valid “content-neutral” regulation that didn’t interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But in an opinion handed down on June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court saw it very differently. In a rare display of agreement, eight of the nine justices voted to strike down the Stratton law as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in the majority opinion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“It is offensive – not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society – that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” [/FONT]

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

Not in Florida...you are free to shoot anyone you feel is threatening you in Florida.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

jehovah's witnesses are sent to your door by the government?

the government funds the jehovah's witnesses?

the jehovah's witnesses are hassling you on government premises?

the answer to all three questions above is "no". and THAT is what the first amendment guarantees.

Where did you get that from.

Manifold falsely claimed he wanted an valid example of a person having freedom of religion, but freedom from it. If this is not a valid counter to that argument, then discuss it on those terms, not on ones you make up in a stupid attempt to make me look uninformed.

The JWs have repeatedly won the right to knock on people's doors despite numerous attempts to restrict them from doing so. Most people would love to restrict this activity, but, because you do not have freedom from religion, they cannot. This despite an almost unanimous consensus that JWs should be prevented from practicing their religion.

My question to you is simple, do you think that this is a valid counter to that, or are you simply going to dismiss it because, like mani, you do not want to admit that anything outside of your partisan view of the world exists. Either address this on the actual issues I am raising, or admit that you prefer to posture rather than debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I repeat my challenge, and extend it to anyone willing to accept.

Again, since you ignored it the first time. Many different communities have attempted to pass laws that stop Jehovah's Witnesses from knocking on doors, and they have all failed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lower courts sided with the town, ruling that the ordinance was a valid “content-neutral” regulation that didn’t interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But in an opinion handed down on June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court saw it very differently. In a rare display of agreement, eight of the nine justices voted to strike down the Stratton law as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in the majority opinion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“It is offensive – not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society – that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” [/FONT]

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

Not in Florida...you are free to shoot anyone you feel is threatening you in Florida.

Try shooting some JWs and see how far that argument gets you.

 

[George Costanza]

I repeat my challenge, and extend it to anyone willing to accept.

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

Again, since you ignored it the first time. Many different communities have attempted to pass laws that stop Jehovah's Witnesses from knocking on doors, and they have all failed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lower courts sided with the town, ruling that the ordinance was a valid “content-neutral” regulation that didn’t interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But in an opinion handed down on June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court saw it very differently. In a rare display of agreement, eight of the nine justices voted to strike down the Stratton law as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in the majority opinion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“It is offensive – not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society – that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” [/FONT]

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

QW, it seems to me that you and four or five of my other friends here, are all parsing the hell out of this argument.

Everyone has freedom OF religion, provided that, in exercising that religion, they do not violate the rights of others or commit crimes (we'll slide over the Mormons for a moment).

Freedom FROM religion gets a little dicier. It depends on who is trying to impose it on you. If it's the government, then everyone does have freedom FROM religion. If it is another citizen, trying to impose his or her religion on you, then I'm afraid you do NOT have freedom from religion. You are correct when you say that JW's are free to bug the hell out of people. They are not agents of the government. They are just (very pushy) people, i.e., other (very pushy) citizens.

 

[George Costanza]

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

jehovah's witnesses are sent to your door by the government?

the government funds the jehovah's witnesses?

the jehovah's witnesses are hassling you on government premises?

the answer to all three questions above is "no". and THAT is what the first amendment guarantees.

Are you agreeing with QW here, Jillian? Seems to me you are. And, if your are, both of you are right.

It sounds to me as though you are saying that, since JW's are not agents of the government, then they can hassle you all they want which, of course, is the way it is. Seems to me that is the same thing that QW is saying - he just isn't pointing out that JW's are not agents of the government.

It also seems to me that this entire thread reached the "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin" stage very early on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I repeat my challenge, and extend it to anyone willing to accept.

Again, since you ignored it the first time. Many different communities have attempted to pass laws that stop Jehovah's Witnesses from knocking on doors, and they have all failed.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The lower courts sided with the town, ruling that the ordinance was a valid “content-neutral” regulation that didn’t interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But in an opinion handed down on June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court saw it very differently. In a rare display of agreement, eight of the nine justices voted to strike down the Stratton law as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in the majority opinion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]“It is offensive – not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society – that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so.” [/FONT]

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

You have freedom of religion, but you do not have freedom from religion, because those JWs can still knock on your door, even if you find it offensive.

QW, it seems to me that you and four or five of my other friends here, are all parsing the hell out of this argument.

Everyone has freedom OF religion, provided that, in exercising that religion, they do not violate the rights of others or commit crimes (we'll slide over the Mormons for a moment).

Freedom FROM religion gets a little dicier. It depends on who is trying to impose it on you. If it's the government, then everyone does have freedom FROM religion. If it is another citizen, trying to impose his or her religion on you, then I'm afraid you do NOT have freedom from religion. You are correct when you say that JW's are free to bug the hell out of people. They are not agents of the government. They are just (very pushy) people, i.e., other (very pushy) citizens.

I am not actually trying to parse this in an attempt to prove that you do not have freedom from religion, I just object to manifold arguing that only one side is using the term, and that there is no reasonable argument that one has freedom of religion but does not have freedom from religion.

If, as some like to argue, we actually had freedom from religion, JWs would have been prohibited from practicing their religion. Enough different governmental agencies have certainly tried over the years that something would have stuck by now.

 

[Ravi]

In your example we still have freedom from religion...we are free to not open the door, we are free to not join their religion.

More importantly, in your example, the taxpayer is not paying any portion of the JW's door-to-door proselytizing. Which we would be if they were allowed to set up shop and proselytize at the county court house. Which they aren't.