What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?

Coragyps quote:
______________________________________________________________________
You're damn right, but I wouldn't characterize the Native American Church folks I knew in Oklahoma as "wackos." Good, solid members of society, and pretty quiet people. And their peyote eating "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", to aggrandize some Jefferson.
______________________________________________________________________I agree and I stand corrected and retract "wackos".Whatever you meant by Jefferson is excluded in my retraction.

I see where you are coming from now. Would I be correct in assuming that "victimless" crimes should be allowed to religions? I would agree with this, except that I don't think that victimless crimes should be prohibited to anyone.I'll put it this way, the Native Americans should be allowed to eat peyote because it doesn't hurt anyone. For the same reason, however, so should I. Although, with this line of thinking, the first amendment still wouldn't impart any specifically religious freedoms.

Willowtree, I can't reply to your new Nazis topic, because it's still being proposed. Edit it and take my quote out. It's already been pointed out to you in this thread that you're cutting off half the quote to use it out of context.Doing so once is an excusable mistake. Twice is being an ass.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Cynic1 quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I see where you are coming from now. Would I be correct in assuming that "victimless" crimes should be allowed to religions? I would agree with this, except that I don't think that victimless crimes should be prohibited to anyone.
______________________________________________________________________It really depends on the situation, but, generally, I am against so called "victimless crimes" being labeled as such because there are victims. The issue is how to handle the situation.Drug abusers hurt their loved ones and society at large. Prostitution is considered "victimless" but intelligent people know the potential spreading of disease will create a victim pool. These things are certainly debateable.Churches that are governed by the Bible are required to obey the laws of society unless they clearly violate Biblical principles. The Pastor at our church says "do what I tell you to do unless it is clearly immoral or illegal".Once again, the price of freedom is the association with nuts/those who will abuse the privileges of the Bill of Rights. But, if the nuts are legislated to be outlaws then this gives precedent to make the good suffer because of the bad. It is better that that a hundred guilty go free than one innocent go to prison. This was decided by our Founding Fathers because of their experience in Rex Lex / Lex Rex.
But now idiot outlaws like the current Supreme Court think they are smarter than Jefferson. If they would just enforce the Contract and refrain from changing the terms it would eventually be alright.

Ok Dan.

I found this decision on-line using FindLaw. See U.S. Supreme Court: EMPLOYMENT DIV., ORE. DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)I consider this an answer to the question posted... what is being restricted is free exercise of worship. I do not think that the imputed reason for this decision (a desire to provide the state with the means to capriciously control all churches) is a fair reading of the case; and I do not think it would have that effect.However, this example is reasonably on the table as an example of the erosion of rights to free exercise of religion. There were three dissenting opinions in that decision, and in my uninformed view I am inclined to prefer to dissenting opinions.I was expecting to hear some kind of argument relating to the rights of Christians in the face of an increasingly secular society; but the question was open ended, and erosion of the rights of other religions is a good answer.In my view, the erosion of rights of minority religions is MORE likely if one particular religion is given any special status or influence. I harbour the cynical suspicion it is no accident that the justices who gave the opinion that might be seen as eroding the right of free exercise of religion for Native Americans are strongly aligned with conservative Christianity.Constitutional constraints on establishment of religion are a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for reliable protection of religious rights.

As both Jefferson and Madison so ably pointed out, the First Amendment applies to thoughts, and not actions. Laws can most definitely be passed that restrict actions. Anti-polygamy laws are a good example, as is the aforementioned restriction against using peyote. Neither of these laws do any more than restrict some religious practices. The word "restrict" does not appear in the First Amendment. Neither of these laws prohibit any religion.Whether it is a law restricting a heinous crime like child sacrifice, a moderate crime like polygamy, or a modest crime like ingesting peyote doesn't matter. Laws can be passed that restrict religion. The degree of crime is irrelevant.Certainly it is understandable that joining a religion doesn't give anyone any special priviledges outside of the law. The law applies to all of us equally. Religion is irrelevant to this principle.Verzem

While the law does represent a restriction on free exercise it has already been conceded that the underlying basis for it is valid. Free exercise does not place religious activity above the law. I will add that if the case had gone the other way there would be a strong pressure for legalisation of peyote and probably marijuana if the Rastafarians brought similar cases. These factors are probably the deciding issues given the prevailing attitude to drugs.So I don't think that this case indicates a significant erosion of religious rights. It is stepping right up to the boundary, and it could be argued that it should have gone the other way, but it is understandable as it stands without invoking any underlying intent to erode religious rights. And since the case was decided 14 years ago if there were any such intent then we should see further and more significant erosions by now.

Verzam, although I think I agree with your basic thought there are myriad problems with your post. I will mention just one of them: the 1st Amendment most definitely goes further than merely preventing a prohibition of religion. You're forgetting the words "or the free exercise thereof".

berberry,While I would agree with your point in a purely logical argument, I don't think it is valid when actually applied to society. As I mentioned, and PaulK so succinctly wrote in his second sentence above, the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment in no way gives religion carte blanche to do as it will, regardless of civil law. It is not valid to argue that this should apply only to really serious crimes. Whether people have a religion or not, and no matter what religion it might be, the law applies to every U.S. citizen equally.Where the "free exercise" clause is applicable would be, e.g., it would be illegal for Congress to pass a law prohibiting the recital of The Creed in church. Again, the First Amendment applies to thoughts, and not actions. People are free to exercise their religion as long as it is within the law.Verzem

Verzem writes:

quote:

---

As I mentioned, and PaulK so succinctly wrote in his second sentence above, the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment in no way gives religion carte blanche to do as it will, regardless of civil law.

---

No, but the post I responded to earlier strongly implied that you felt the 1st amendment merely prevented the government from prohibiting religion when in fact it goes much further than that. If that was not your point I apologize for misreading it.

Good enougha self-proclaimed "nonbeliever" asserted with an OBSERVATION (so said inter alia) that science accumulates but religion decreases with the issue of Polikinthorne's "iteractivity" in the balance at the Cornell event so I would agree with you and him that in fact there is no "right" actually BEING 'eroded'. This chap just wanted to justy BOTH how I got outed of the school and which way I and other believers were leaviing thru the door after the talk. Same applies here indeed. I see no erosion on the mismatch of concrete and the garden as P suggested to the blink of the crowd.

quote:

---

In my view, the erosion of rights of minority religions is MORE likely if one particular religion is given any special status or influence.

---

As is evidenced by the Puritans moving to the American colonies from England to avoid religious persecution by the Church of England. The US was founded on religious freedom, not government endorsement of specific religions (as I am sure you are very aware of).

quote:

---

Constitutional constraints on establishment of religion are a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for reliable protection of religious rights.

---

Very true. Societal pressures are outside the Constitutions reach. The Constitution is a stop gap between societal pressures and the implementation of law. An Establishment Clause might not prevent social persecution, but it helps to prevent government persecution, as well as encourage government protection of minority opinions. What I see in America right now is people ignoring this fact, that the Constitution is there to protect the minority at the expense of limiting the majority. Somehow "but most of us believe in this" is suddenly a sufficient argument for guiding the formation of law.

Sylas writes:
______________________________________________________________________
I harbour the cynical suspicion it is no accident that the justices who gave the opinion that might be seen as eroding the right of free exercise of religion for Native Americans are strongly aligned with conservative Christianity.
______________________________________________________________________But in the post you are responding to I said that this decision strongly evidences that "party affiliation is a smokescreen". Futhermore, the sudden coming-together of the mainstream churches that attempted by brief to overturn the decision demonstrates against your view that the justices who SHOULD be aligned with conservative christianity did in fact snub their alleged philosophical friends.
This, in turn, evidences the fact that the Supreme Court is a biased puppet for the State, which backs my claim that the State, by nature, seeks to strip/gut rights, even the PREMIUM rights of the First Amendment.No peyote eating religious ceremony threatens law and order, it just so happens that this case was used to chip away at the First Amendment AND to remove the strong wording of "compelling state interest" for an easier inroad to go after the "next" church. Scalia, in the opinion, basically said there are too many churches with too many practices and this fact warranted the rights downsizing. Rulings like this will be used as a precedent for further rights erosion, and this too was clearly reasoned in the post you responded to.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-30-2004]

In post 59 you accepted the principle that the First Amendment did not give religious practices exemption from the law.For this particular case to really be about the First Amendment it needs to be shown that the law against peyote exists for the purpose of forbidding a religious practice. To the best of my knowledge that has not been shown.I contend that the judges in this case are opposed to the legalisation of drugs and decided the case on that basis. If the decision had gone the other way peyote would have to be legalised. Not only that, but the door would be open for the Rastafarians to launch a similar case for the legalsiation of marijuana. These factors in themselves are sufficient to account for the decision, without there being any intent to undermine the First Amendment.