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

Well I hope you'll forgive me for not believing you - because if it was not about money you have had plenty of opportunities to say so - and this is the first time you have said so.I've said why I don't buy the "entanglement" issue. It isn't in the text of the First Amendment and the application raises problems which ARE covered by the First Amendment. And to the best of my knowledge it has NOT been declared a right - how can giving special rights to religious organisations NOT be advancement of religion ?And if you are concerned about state involvement isn't it better NOT to put the state in the position of having to declare whether or not an organisation should be considered a bona fide religion or part of one ? The more "perks" or worse "rights" given specifically to religious organisations the easier it is for the state to avoid making such decisions and just accept that any organisiation that claims to be religious really is. I know that there has been a BIG fuss over Scientology and tax exemptions.So of the two cases you have looked at in detail, one of them appears to be simply a drugs issue - with no agenda of eroding religious rights. The other involves no clear threat to free exercise or any well-established right and is based on reversing a decision by the very body supposedly responsible for eroding religious freedoms.And I hope that when you talk about giving something costly that you mean in terms of what you can afford - not simply giving large amounts that you can easily spare. That is the message of the widow's mite.

"Seperation of Church and State" refers to establishment which IS in the text of the First Amendment.And your "de-establishment" cannot refer to "establishment" as it is meant in the First Amendment because it forbids that churches should be "established" in the first place.I don't find the idea that churches MIGHT be bankrupted by taxation very relevant because thay CAN already be bankrupted through other expenses which entails state involvement through the judiciary anyway.And you are wrong to say that "entanglement" specifically refers to taxation. It appears in other contexts - and is more rightly applied to those where the state is directly involved in religious affairs as opposed to the secular affairs of religious organisations.And if the Supreme Court decided that something was a "right" that does not make it "God-given" unless you wish to also say that decisions denying a right also come from God - which messes up your case entirely.Going on to your assessment of the peyote case please present evidence that the drugs issue was not the overriding factor in the decision. Your objections to the decision are simply irrelevant yet you use them as a basis for denying an entirely reasonable interpetation of the case.I also note from your final list of examples that you object to the First Amendment anyway and object that the Government is not entangling ittself in religion in ways you deem desirable. I conclude then that you are not seriou about the First Amendment and wish it to be rejected in favour of Established religion (but - I am sure - only if it is a religion YOU like).

There is a clear difference between expressing the same concpet in different words ("establishment" versus "seperation of Church and State" and the sort of extended interpretation that produced the concept of "entanglement". They are not equivalent.Secondly if you propose that Churches might suffer penalties for disobeying the law is that not already the case ? How does taxation significantly change that ?As for my last paragraph it is quite clear that you demanded government sponsorship of your religion - and claimed that there was a RIGHT to Government sponsorship of your religion. See the last line of post 145. It is not at all ridiculouss to say that you reject the First Amendment, instead desiring that your religion be established.

I've already proved that you said it. Itt's right there for everyone to see. You are complaining that government sponsorship of religion is being removed and - in context - you are calling that an erosion of religious rights.And no you didn't use the word "sponsor" - but sponsorship is what you are talking about.

When you include the State NOT sponsoring religion as an erosion of "religious rights", how am I to include that you mean anything other than that you believe that religion has a RIGHT to Government sponsorship. Which is an establishment of religion.I remind you of the last line of your post 145 whioch I have already referred you back to once:
http://EvC Forum: What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA? -->EvC Forum: What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA? clearly referring to an end to Government sponsorship as an erosion of religous rights.
YOu want the Government to put your Holy book in it's own works, to teach it in schools to put it in monuments and presumably everywhere in everything touched by government. You even claim it as a right.

I did not claim that you used the word "sponsoring".
That is a word game - but that is all you have, since the rest of your post proves that I was correct.If the Government puts up a cross it is shoeing favouritism towards Christianity. If it gives Christians speciual access to Government property to erect crosses it is favouring Christianity. That is Government sponsorship of religion. Why can't the Government just be a secular institution not involving itself in purely religious matters ?

My spelling is fine - it is just my typing that is not too good.Especially when I am busy laughing at the idea that you have "won".The only example you have presented showing even the slightest erosion was - as you admit - explainable entirely on the grounds that the case involved the use of drugs.In none of the others have you demonstrated that genuine religious rights are in any danger whatsoever. You have however put forward a number of nutty ideas that you have been unable to support.I suppose that in not being utterly crushed you have done better in this thread than in others but that hardly constitutes winning.

Of course the ACLU is for civil liberties - while the Taliban and Willowtree are very much against them.And of course Willowtree doesn't have a clue what the ACLU really do:This for instance:http://www.freep.com/news/education/utica12_20040512.htm

Oh dear, how sad. Willowtree got proven wrong again so he has to go off on one of his little tantrums and his lies about all the people he hates.You know Willowtree if you opened your mind - instead of calling other people closed-minded for looking beyond the sources you want them to see - and actually made some effort to find the truth you might not be so badly wrong so often.

In the discussion over taxation of churches I argued that exemption on religious grounds itself creted government involvement in religious matters, because the government placed itself in a position where it had to rule on whether or not an organisation qualified.In Texas, the State Comptroller has used that ability to take the exemption away from a Unitarian church. There are also suggestions that the Comptroller may be biased against "non-traditional" religions.http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/8692961.htm?1cThe Comptroller's lawyer, Jesse Ancira is quoted as saying Well there's a simple alternative. Don't give special privileges to religious organisations. Then nobody can abuse the system - neither claimants nor government officials.