First Amendment and Houses of Worship
My question involves civil rights in the State of: Federal Rights and the First Amendment. When the Bill of Rights was first penned, one of the Authors, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the interpretation for the first amendment. It states that the law provides every citizen regardless of background or cultural identity, the freedom to worship God according to his or her own conscience. Why are all the recent judgments in favor of only those who chose not to worship him at all? Should they be able to force their viewpoint on those who do choose to worship God as they believe Him? Their voice should be according to the percentages stated by the law, an appreciable majority. Should they be forced to worship when they do not believe? We already know in this country that they are not forced. They don't ever have to step into a house of worship in this country if they choose it and they will not be punished for it. Why should they try to dictate what all the houses of worship in this country do behind their own doors? It is their right to worship according to their conscience. There should be no law in this country that forces a house of worship to act against their creed.
Re: First Amendment Rights
Since I don't agree with your interpretation of the rulings in general, maybe a few examples of what you believe are rulings that in themselves are discriminatory would be a good idea.
Re: First Amendment Rights
Would you be good enough to explain what law has been passed that forces a house of worship to act against their own creed?
Re: First Amendment Rights
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
Would you be good enough to explain what law has been passed that forces a house of worship to act against their own creed?
Yes, I am confused about that as well. I am unaware of any laws that prohibit a church from following their creeds within their own church. Unless, of course, we are talking about something blatantly illegal. Murder, rape, arson, cruelty to animals, etc...things that are against the law for anyone to do, regardless of their religion.
Re: First Amendment Rights
Looks like it's troll time, folks.
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
My question involves civil rights in the State of: Federal Rights and the First Amendment. When the Bill of Rights was first penned, one of the Authors, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the interpretation for the first amendment. It states that the law provides every citizen regardless of background or cultural identity, the freedom to worship God according to his or her own conscience.
Clearly, you haven't read the First Amendment. It doesn't say that. It says (with regard to religion):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
Why are all the recent judgments in favor of only those who chose not to worship him at all?
What judgments are you referring to? Please cite them or quote them.
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
Should they be able to force their viewpoint on those who do choose to worship God as they believe Him?
Who is "they"?
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
Their voice should be according to the percentages stated by the law, an appreciable majority.
What law? What percentages? What majority?
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
Should they be forced to worship when they do not believe?
Again, who is "they" and under what circumstances is anybody being "forced" to worship when they do not believe.
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
Why should they try to dictate what all the houses of worship in this country do behind their own doors?
Again with the "they." Sigh.
Quote:
Quoting
leilani63
There should be no law in this country that forces a house of worship to act against their creed.
That's right. And I don't know any such laws that actually exist. Why don't you quote one for us?
Re: First Amendment and Houses of Worship
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. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Here is a quote and portion of Thomas Jefferson's letter from Teachourhistory.com:
"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific.... [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights."
The Danbury Baptists were concerned that Constitutional protection provided by the First Amendment suggested that the "free exercise of religion" was a government-given privilege rather than a God-given right, and as such, the government might someday choose to revoke that privilege.
Jefferson understood their concerns, and also felt strongly that the government should not be permitted to regulate, restrict or interfere with the free exercise of religious expression. In response to the Danbury Baptists' letter, he wrote back, assuring them that they did not need to worry; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the government:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurance of my high respect and esteem." (http://teachourhistory.com/jefferson...-amendment.htm) The Bible was used as a reader tool in many small communities up to the mid nineteenth century. My junior high school has sports teams, music activities, a chess club, a science club, and a Bible club. I first learned what Heaven looked like from a substitute teacher in fourth grade. Mind you, about that time one boy in one town decided to tell his parents that he did not like to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which was spoken at the beginning of every day, because he did not believe in God. Yes, we felt the ripples, but freedom of religion and our nation's own religious identity held sway, then.
Do you know why we have so many religions in our country now? Because we do not have a religious identity. I had a very nice Hindi gentlemen tell me this when a family member and I prayed over our lunch. He commended me on my faith. He was not at all insulted that our prayer was not to one of his many gods, but to our own God. Why do we need, after over two hundred years in existence, suddenly decide we are not going to require the Pledge of Allegiance, try to change the words to our pledge of loyalty to our country, forbid children in cafeterias to pray silently over their lunches. Even five year olds are not safe from reprimand. The facades of the Congressional buildings are challenged because they have the Ten Commandments on them even though most of our laws surround and support them. Merry Christmas is no one of the inflammatory phrases to use, even though we can also say Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, yet the current favorite is Seasons Greetings or Happy Holidays. Students who gather round a flagpole once a year are hassled. Now we get to perform all kinds of marriages. Will these couples who come to churches accept a gentle refusal from a pastor or will they go get another press conference going and bash church by accusing it of a hate crime? Some churches will say yes, while others say no. Our country affords any business owner the right to refuse service if say, the customer is a heckler and is insulting or offending all the other patrons. Will the pastors have the same right? What's next? Will churches have to take every ornament off their buildings and windows so that no one else who drives by these gathering places has to be offended by their crosses? Is this where we are headed? After the Christians are boundaried to the point where they have no freedoms, who will be next? The Jewish people? The Muslims? The Hindis?
- - - Updated - - -
They are those who seek to rewrite history books in order to make them more PC and are so offended by any religious statement in a public forum whether physical or virtual that they lobby for the removal of the offense. They also stands for those who wish to take the separation of church and state phrase to the extend that no government related edifice should show any sort of religious identity, even if it has stood as long or longer than the formation of our country when the leaders of the day were implementing the Bill of Rights and building the national monuments we now have.
Re: First Amendment and Houses of Worship
Well, you get an "A" for "Absurdity".
Other than that, you clearly don't understand the concepts you're trying to debate.
Re: First Amendment and Houses of Worship
The courts have not outlawed all symbols on government property that may be religious. They have banned those displays by the government that are connected to a specific religion if the government does not also accommodate displays for other religions as well. The reason is that the government cannot promote on religion over another. Thus, for example, putting up a Christian nativity scene on the courthouse steps but not also putting up holiday displays for other religions can be problem because that give the appearance of promoting or, in the words of the Constitution, establishing, a particular religion as the preferred religion of the state. Just because Christians are used to seeing the symbols of their religion in government places does not mean that those symbols belong there. Just because something is a long standing practice doesn’t mean it’s right.
The courts have not banned the pledge of allegiance. Schools may have students recite the pledge if they wish, so long as students who have a religious objection do not have to participate. Courts have not prohibited anyone from saying a silent prayer before a meal. But courts have said that the government cannot compel students or anyone else to pray.
As you can see, the general pattern here is that the government does not interfere with a citizen’s religious practices but the government cannot itself compel people to participate in religious activities and it cannot promote one religion over another. That basic premise is, I think, how it ought to be. Government ought not either promote religion or interfere with it. It should simply stay out of it altogether.
It might interest you, by the way, to know that the pledge of allegience originally did not have the phrase “under God” in it. Nor has our currency always had the “In God We Trust on it.” Our founders did not see a need to put that sort of religious language into the official symbolism of the nation.
Re: First Amendment and Houses of Worship
Wow ... ya know, I really want to agree with some argument you make, Leilani, because I honestly do believe there is an assault upon Christians and Christian values in this country today. But, you post nothing to discuss except some generalities and platitudes. So ... <shrug>
Re: First Amendment and Houses of Worship
You quote others well.
Quote:
They are those who seek to rewrite history books in order to make them more PC and are so offended by any religious statement in a public forum whether physical or virtual that they lobby for the removal of the offense. They also stands for those who wish to take the separation of church and state phrase to the extend that no government related edifice should show any sort of religious identity, even if it has stood as long or longer than the formation of our country when the leaders of the day were implementing the Bill of Rights and building the national monuments we now have.
separation of church and state; that simply means the gov cannot sponsor nor become involved in, as in attempting to control due to it being a religion, any established religion. That has resulted in removing religious displays on government controlled lands. While when the Christian religion was accepted as "the" religion of our country it was common to place Christian displays on government land. Now that other religions have become more common and there have been objections to the Christian displays as they, if allowed to exist at the denial of the displays of other religions would in fact result in the appearance of a government sponsorship, some government buildings/lands are being open up to any religious display or simply denying all religious displays.
It matters not the length those displays have been allowed. It is never too late to correct an injustice or an error or to make changes, if required, for the government to treat all religions equally. While it is not something typically considered in this sort of matter but none the less applicable; there is no allowance for a prescriptive easement upon government lands.
The issue I have is that Christmas is a holiday specific to Christians. No other religion celebrates it. Why other religions, in an attempt to dilute the appreciation of Christmas, demand equal space on government lands during this holiday is bothersome. Choose your own special holiday and seek to place a symbol of observance during that period. Don't try to bully your way into the Christian's celebration.
So what was your question or situation you wished to actually discuss?