Post 34
______________________________________________________________________
Separation of Church and State is nowhere to be found in the Contract, it is an invention of atheists who robbed a theist (Thomas Jefferson) of his words and twisted their meaning to suit their objectives.
This country is experiencing total betrayal by the Judicial Branch.
God-hating judges are interpreting the Constitution to say a Bible, or a Cross on public lands, or a generic prayer to be an EDORSEMENT of religion and thus a violation of Church and State.
______________________________________________________________________
Post 34
______________________________________________________________________
Atheism is a religion, it is against theism. It seeks to force its philosophy and morals onto a christian nation via this ridiculous changing of the contract. I could reference thousands of examples of Founding Fathers and government papers that are strewn with references to the Divine which proves that this current pro-atheist judicial favoring is outlawness
______________________________________________________________________
Post 34
______________________________________________________________________
The war on terror has Congress crafting laws to get Islamic religious organizations who funnell money to terrorists. These laws will eventually be used to go after the Church. Idiot John Ashcroft, a theist, is too stupid to envision the damage he is doing in his zeal to nail terrorists.
______________________________________________________________________
Post 53
______________________________________________________________________
Excerpt from "Why Religion Matters" by Professor Huston Smith (2001)
"Employment Division v. Smith sent shockwaves through the churches of the land, for while the Native American Church was its direct target, its ramifications did not impact that Church alone. Watchdogs for the major churches had been following the Smith case closely, seeing consequences in it for religious freedom in general: "If it's them today, tomorrow it could be us." So it was that, the day after the Supreme Court's decision, the largest coalition of religious bodies ever to unite in a common cause - some sevnty five in all - entered a brief asking the Court to reconsider its decision, which it refused to do.
The churches had reason to be concerned, for no one had expected the provisions of Smith to be so far reaching. Through hundreds of federal and state cases relating to American religious freedom in the last two hundred years, the phrase "compelling state interest" had emerged as the test for state intervention. Unless the state could prove that there was a compelling need to intervene, it was not entitled to do so. Smith lowered that threshold to a "rational basis".
To support this retreat from the established threshold, Justice Scalia (who wrote the decision) argued that America's religious diversity had proliferated to the point where religious freedom was a "luxury" that a pluralistic society could no longer "afford." In withdrawing the "compelling interest" standard, the court also removed from First Amendment protection the entire body of criminal law. This, in effect, rewrote the First Amendment to read, "Congress shall make no laws except criminal laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion." (Put more simply, Smith mandated Congress to disregard the First Amendment if the law being considered is classed as a criminal law.) Finally, the court suggested that the First Amendment does not protect the free exercise of religion unless some other First Amendment right, such as speech or association, is involved. This, of course, makes religious freedom irrelevant, for those other rights are independently protected. Milner Ball, professor of constitutional law at the university of Georgia, said at the time that "after Smith, there is a real and troublesome question about whether the free exercise clause has any real practical meaning in the law at all. When you need the First Amendment, it won't be there. Or at least, that is the way the Smith case has left the law."
I have already referred to the consternation that the Smith decision awakened in the religious community, and it sprang into action immediately. With the strong support of President Clinton, the coalition of churches succeeded in getting Congress to pass the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the "compelling interest" phrase as the standard that government agencies needed to meet before they could interfere in religious affairs. The churches breathed easier, but only for three years, for in 1997 the Supreme Court struck down that act on grounds that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in passing it." END EXCERPT.
______________________________________________________________________
Forget about party affiliation, that is a smoke screen you cannot trust. The Supreme Court, and its pseudo-republican justices reflect the nature of government perfectly. Constitutional rights for mainstream powerful churches is in a position to be eliminated. The State views ANYONE with power to be a threat, they butcher the Contract/Constitution by circumvention, if not straight out eviscerating its strength via lowering established threshholds for State intervention.
The hypocrisy of the Supreme Court is to give the freak show called the Amish, constitutional protection under the First Amendment from having to send their kids to secular schools. They point to this and say, "See, the First Amendment in action." The Amish pose no perceived threat, but they will not ever rule in favor of intelligent mainstream churches. Yet the Church-hating news media will not cry foul with their powerful resources because their rights are not being threatened. Everyones rights are eligible and will be stripped, just give the government time. The war on terror will do just that.
______________________________________________________________________
Post 58
______________________________________________________________________
Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Here we have a non threatening religious practice USED by the State to vacate the high standard of government intrusion (compelling state interest) in favor of a lower standard for no other reason than to provide the State the means to capriciously control ALL churches.
Any entity that has power is a target for rights erosion. The Smith decision will become a springboard/has become an entry point to remove the strength of the First Amendement as it pertains to churches.
The reality is this: First Amendment is there in effigy, a marquee that has been gutted.
It is better that peyote eating wackos be able to ingest drug at religious services, than for the government to use this as precedent/pretext to declaw the First Amendment.
The price of freedom is association with nuts/those who will abuse freedom, but who is going to protect us from outlaws like Scalia, Rehnquist, and Ginsburg ?
______________________________________________________________________
Post 74 (this content protests the departure from "compelling state interest" in favor of a less stringent "rational basis" as a standard for the State the prove before they can intrude into the affairs of a church)
______________________________________________________________________
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.
______________________________________________________________________
Post 90
______________________________________________________________________
Go to Google and type "Colorado Tax Churches". This is an old movement that has recently raised its ugly head in Colorado.
The following excerpt lifted from a website best explains the position of churches:
"Tax exemption is necessary to protect the government from violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Tax exemption protects the government from excessive entanglement with churches by eliminating the need for a governmental valuation of church property, for an imposition of church-state reporting and auditing requirements, and for potential governmental tax liens and tax foreclosures.
Tax exemption does not establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment. There is no primary effect of advancing or sponsoring religion as a general subsidy because tax exemption does not involve the direct transfer of public monies to churches and does not involve use of resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. Tax exemption merely restricts an unconstitutional fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce a desired insulation of churches from the state.
Removal of tax exemption from churches would demonstrate hostility toward religion and inhibit the free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause." END EXCERPT
Churches in the U.S. have been granted by Legislature and affirmed by the Supreme Court tax exempt status. (Walz v. Tax Commission 1970)
The issue is called "entanglement". What policy, by the State, pursued, would cause the least entanglement of State into Church as to not violate the First Amendment. If State is allowed to tax churches then this intrusion would inevitably result in State having to examine records/seize property for non payment/sell property to collect owed taxes. If State is NOT allowed to tax churches then none of these entanglements would occur. The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment would be better served/least entangled by granting churches tax exempt status.
Movements in Colorado and elsewhere are constantly percolating, the need for revenue has many demanding the tax exempt status for churches be dismantled.
I want to remind that the exemption is, by ruling, a constitutional RIGHT of the Establishment Clause, which means this right has the status of a "premium right", which means other rights, however valid, cannot be used as an argument to invalidate.
______________________________________________________________________
Links from Post 90
______________________________________________________________________
entanglement issue:
PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning Company
The following site evidences the claim of persons/entities/movements that are trying to rescind church tax exemption :
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/churchtx.htm______________________________________________________________________
Post 129 (reiterates the issue of possibly removing property tax exemption right)(notice the courts already ruled it a right and forces that be want that right removed)
______________________________________________________________________
The Courts have already ruled that Churches are to be exempt from property taxes. This exemption was elevated to be a First Amendment right because the alternative was the entanglement of the State into church affairs when taxes were not paid. The Courts have ruled long ago that it is better for the First Amendment that churches be not taxed.
I brought the issue up to call attention to the fact that various movements from time to time try and get the Courts to rescind this right.
______________________________________________________________________
Post 135 (a little principle reiteration)
______________________________________________________________________
Rights only exist because government/State are known to not recognize them unless forced to do so. Are you even slightly educated as to why the Constitution was created ? You seem to think government is trustworthy today and that they would never abuse their power.
______________________________________________________________________
Post 142
______________________________________________________________________
I am arguing that the issue has already been decided, and it has been decided to be a First Amendment RIGHT (property tax exemption). I already provided evidence that movements are constantly being formed to challenge this right. In response, I argue the subject of this topic that it is (in this case) a potential right erosion
______________________________________________________________________
Post 147 (note that Trixie never argued for or against - only alleged erosions were not posted)
______________________________________________________________________
The issue was non payment of taxes (for whatever reason, which I readily admit could be caused by numerous reasons) which would result in the State seizing property to pay the tax and thus this action would result in the Establishment Clause being violated. Again, this was just one reason why the Courts granted the RIGHT to not be taxed.
I like and agree with it - you do not. Can we move on ?
______________________________________________________________________
Post 171 (I have mercifully decided to just post the link and not the long cut and paste)
______________________________________________________________________
Page not found · GitHub Pages______________________________________________________________________
Admin:
The issue is that Trixie says I have not provided any examples of religious rights erosion. She or anyone can disagree, but to say I have not posted them is a huge difference and a boldface lie.
Thanks !
WT
™ Version 4.2
