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

Hi folks,I am honoured to be asked to contribute a view, but I don't think it was necessary. I'll express a view, with no expectation or demand than anyone agree. If it helps, great. I will not refer back to other threads which I have not read; I will only consider the first 18 posts in this thread, and this thread only.The original post Message 1 appears to be a perfectly reasonable question. The name in the title gives focus to the question. Focus is a good thing to have; although names in titles can be risky and should be used with caution. I must declare a conflict of interest here; I recently put a name in a new title. However, it is not my usual practice; but I honestly find no major issue in this instance. Message 2, from the administrator who approved the topic, raised an interesting point about thread approvals. I would advise against making public comment on editorial corrections, but to take the opportunity to fix errors prior to forming the thread. This could be done by requesting the original user to edit their post before it is approved, or making a minor correction at the time of approval. Notice of such minor corrections should appear in the original Proposed Topic area, and not in the new thread. Just a thought. Message 3 and Message 4 express interest in the original question. No issues. Message 5 and Message 6 are a side track into an extreme phenomenon in the USA; interesting, but a bit off topic. Message 7 was the first mention of blackmail, and asks the original poster to remove the name from the thread. The request was calmly stated, but invalid. There is no blackmail involved or suggested by having a name in a thread title, and the author cannot modify the title in any case. Message 8 responds to the request. I agree with the response, but this post makes the start of rising levels of aggression. Aggression is okay sometimes; and in this case the post is entirely fair, but it does set the trend for what follows. Message 9 and Message 10 introduce ideas which could go to the subject of erosion of right. People may disagree with views, but the posts are fair. Message 11 attempts to identify the putative blackmail. With this post, all attempts to engage the topic are out the window and the aggression has escalated to become naked. But in fact, nothing is given which could reasonably be called blackmail. Crashfrog is the one who asked the original question and set the title. Crash tends to be, shall we say, a robust debater. The word "innocent" does not spring to mind when one thinks of Crash. He might even agree. I cannot comment to the allusions of defeats in other debates, but I remain persuaded that the original post and topic title was indeed "innocent" of blackmail or abuse or rantings. My major comment here is that second guessing motives and real reasons is not helpful; and degrades debate. It is a poor excuse for not answering the original question. Message 12 was the response to 11. This post is firm, but fair; classic Crash. It manages to avoid contributing directly to the downward spiral, but alas at this stage only a comparatively nauseous conciliatory tone could avert the coming collapse. I don't think that is in Crashfrog's repertoire. Message 13 is good advice from Asgara. This is the first post I endorse completely and without hesitation. Message 14 and Message 15 and Message 17 refer back to the previous thread, so I have no comment. Message 16 speculates on blackmail some more, with moral overtones that are not exactly going to contribute to calming the waters. Message 18 is where I am first invoked. Although I am actually being invoked by the author of this post, WillowTree, I think this post is itself very unreasonable.My advice is to drop the matter of blackmail. There is no blackmail involved.The closest you can get to blackmail is the perception that the original question is not one WillowTree will be able to answer effectively. The use of difficult questions to expose errors and weaknesses in a debating colleague's position is standard and fair in debate. Failing to answer straightforward questions quite properly reflects negatively on the defenders of a position. The use of unfair questions which incorporate invalid presumptions or which fail to actually engage the position they are questioning are also common in debate. The best approach, IMO, is to clarify the original position and respond to the question anyway. This can really help show your position more clearly.Pressing a good question will emphasize and underline weakness, although it can eventually become a case of beating a dead horse; the dead horse usually being the position which failed to adequately answer difficult questions. I see no reason to doubt that the question was honest and genuine; although I remain unsure of the extent to which the implication that anyone perceives an erosion of rights is valid; in part because of a lack of a clear answer to the question.There was no need or cause to predicate a response to the original question on removal of a name from the thread title. There was never a basis for the spectre of blackmail.Bear in mind that sometimes the right response to a difficult question is to acknowledge that the original post was overstated and needs to be revised.In any case, may I propose that the topic for this thread should be The question is specifically directed at WillowTree, who is under no obligation to answer. But it is a good question. Second guessing at motives for the question is not helpful and swiftly takes us off topic.Cheers — SylasPS. I'll be very irritated if anyone from any side refers back to this post in the future as a cudgel to beat up other posters. If in the future anyone has something critical to say about a poster, and this will certainly be the case, please express it in your own words; not in mine. Other people will have different perspectives to me on some of the matters I've mentioned, and this is expected and okay. Although I have been asked to comment as a mediator, this is post is just my view; not any kind of formal or final judgement to which others must defer.

For the record I was not actually requesting a change of title, just suggesting the most appropriate topic focus for subsequent posts. Still and all, the new title helps this focus, and I trust it makes all my previously commentary moot, and allows a return to substance. Stranger things have happened. Not often, I grant; but hope springs eternal.Thank you linesmen, thank you ballboys. Over and out -- Sylas

The topic title does no such thing.It is an honest question. It was worded specifically to avoid implications about the answer, or a presumption that there are or are not rights being eroded.I gather that you believe certain religious rights are being eroded; but I still do not know what rights you mean. The discussion of the establishment clause is interesting; but does not identify any rights that are being eroded.Crashfrog asks a fair question.If the growing secularisation of society is not actually eroding any rights, then let's be clear that erosion of rights is not the issue here. That's my perception. I think society is becoming more secular and that religion is losing influence in some areas; but I don't think there is any associated erosion of rights.On the other hand, if there is an erosion of rights, then we ought to be able to identify the rights in question.Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-26-2004]

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.