1st Amendment religion clauses.

[BackAgain]

At the outset, let’s state that this is in current events (for now) since the SCOTUS has rendered a new decision about how the state cannot enforce laws which violate religious beliefs.

First: let’s put up the entire 1st Amendment.

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, let’s suggest that those two highlighted clauses (in red) aren’t really terribly unclear at all.

There is no state religion. Cool. The gubmint cannot compel me to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, etc. and it can’t compel me to even have a religious belief or to have or profess any given faith.

Then it says that it cannot prohibit me from having any particular faith or no faith at all.

That’s it. That’s all it says. Various cases have led to a wide array of court decisions which seem to go beyond those two things. I’d proceed to analyze any such cases instead just on those two clauses.

Does a particular law deny me my right to the practice of my religion? If not, does it compel me to adhere to any other specific religious belief? If no to both, then no violation of the 1st Amendment religion clauses.

 

[dblack]

At the outset, let’s state that this is in current events (for now) since the SCOTUS has rendered a new decision about how the state cannot enforce laws which violate religious beliefs.

First: let’s put up the entire 1st Amendment.

Now, let’s suggest that those two highlighted clauses (in red) aren’t really terribly unclear at all.

There is no state religion. Cool. The gubmint cannot compel me to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, etc. and it can’t compel me to even have a religious belief or to have or profess any given faith.

Then it says that it cannot prohibit me from having any particular faith or no faith at all.

That’s it. That’s all it says. Various cases have led to a wide array of court decisions which seem to go beyond those two things. I’d proceed to analyze any such cases instead just on those two clauses.

Does a particular law deny me my right to the practice of my religion? If not, does it compel me to adhere to any other specific religious belief? If no to both, then no violation of the 1st Amendment religion clauses.

Exactly. But a series of bad Court decisions have added a bunch of baggage to this, in particular the practice of "re-imagining" laws to include exemptions for certain religious beliefs. If a law is found to violate the First, it should be struck down entirely and sent back to Congress. Not mutilated with tacked on exemptions that Congress never debated or voted on.

 

[BackAgain]

Exactly. But a series of bad Court decisions have added a bunch of baggage to this, in particular the practice of "re-imagining" laws to include exemptions for certain religious beliefs. If a law is found to violate the First, it should be struck down entirely and sent back to Congress. Not mutilated with tacked on exemptions that Congress never debated or voted on.

I agree to the extent that the Court ought to refrain from legislating. It is axiomatic in the legal analysis of a law that if it can be construed in a way that doesn’t require it to be struck down entirely, that is the interpretation and result that is favored.

However, if a law clearly (on its face) violates the 1st Amendment, void the law — explain why — and let it go back for Congress to fix, if that’s what Congress wants to do.

 

[Donald H]

I agree to the extent that the Court ought to refrain from legislating. It is axiomatic in the legal analysis of a law that if it can be construed in a way that doesn’t require it to be struck down entirely, that is the interpretation and result that is favored.

However, if a law clearly (on its face) violates the 1st Amendment, void the law — explain why — and let it go back for Congress to fix, if that’s what Congress wants to do.

No, respectfully and politely, you're once again wrong on all counts.

Fixing the amendments or Americans coming to the realization that they're coming up with wild interpretations would be helpful.

 

[BackAgain]

No, respectfully and politely, you're once again wrong on all counts.

Fixing the amendments or Americans coming to the realization that they're coming up with wild interpretations would be helpful.

With no respect intended, you’re completely wrong and, moreover, it’s not the concern of some Commie Canuck.

MYOB.

 

[Donald H]

I agree to the extent that the Court ought to refrain from legislating. It is axiomatic in the legal analysis of a law that if it can be construed in a way that doesn’t require it to be struck down entirely, that is the interpretation and result that is favored.

You've at least validated my comment on wrong 'interpretations' being the biggest problem for America's Constitution.

However, if a law clearly (on its face) violates the 1st Amendment, void the law — explain why — and let it go back for Congress to fix, if that’s what Congress wants to do.

You haven't made reference to any law that 'on its face' violates the 1A.
And then after mention of the 1A, just doesn't make any sense. Take care when writing a sentence please!

 

[Concerned American]

You've at least validated my comment on wrong 'interpretations' being the biggest problem for America's Constitution.

You haven't made reference to any law that 'on its face' violates the 1A.
And then after mention of the 1A, just doesn't make any sense. Take care when writing a sentence please!

Read the last acronym, duck. It is nunya.

 

[BackAgain]

You've at least validated my comment on wrong 'interpretations' being the biggest problem for America's Constitution.

No; you get no validation from anything I posted. But nice try.

You haven't made reference to any law that 'on its face' violates the 1A.

So? Was I obligated to?

And then after mention of the 1A, just doesn't make any sense. Take care when writing a sentence please!

Your attempted ^sentence is actually unclear. What the fuck are you babbling about now?

 

[meaner gene]

Does a particular law deny me my right to the practice of my religion?

Many of the drug laws do just that. Whether it's peyote for the Native American Indians, or marijuana for the Rastafarians.

In the bible, GOD gave the use of every plant to man. Yet there are drug laws that infringed upon that.

 

[meaner gene]

I agree to the extent that the Court ought to refrain from legislating. It is axiomatic in the legal analysis of a law that if it can be construed in a way that doesn’t require it to be struck down entirely, that is the interpretation and result that is favored.

However, if a law clearly (on its face) violates the 1st Amendment, void the law — explain why — and let it go back for Congress to fix, if that’s what Congress wants to do.

Except there are many examples where the supreme court didn't void the law. They left legal guidelines that effectively change the law, but left the law in place. Leaving people to have to read the case law, along with the statute.

 

[whitehall]

It's not a "religious clause" as such. It's spelled out in presumably the most important freedom guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

 

[dblack]

It's not a "religious clause" as such. It's spelled out in presumably the most important freedom guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Thank you for that important clarification.