surreptitious57 wrote:Seth wrote:
The free exercise of religion clause NEVER authorizes any person (or group of persons) to directly impose their religion or beliefs upon any other adult without their consent It is a voluntary individual personal right that does not grant any authority over other adults to compel actions or behaviors. Therefore any religion that purports to exercise social political or religious authority over any adult against their express consent and will as Islam doe is not protected by the First Amendment at least to the extent that such practices and exercises violate the rights of others and thus such practices may be regulated or banned entirely by law and be in harmony with the First Amendment
Given that the Founding Fathers did not favour any one religion over all others should every religion be treated absolutely equally under the law?
No. Each religion is treated according to it's willingness to comport with the principles of liberty, equality and individual rights of others not of that religion.
If so is it not illegal and unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings?
The courts are divided on this issue, but I personally think that the ban is generally appropriate except as historical artifacts in historical or museum settings.
For should they only be displayed in churches or Christian homes?
Or on private property or public property where the display does not create a rational inference of favoritism, such as in a courtroom, courthouse or legislative chamber.
And given also that the Founding Fathers did not favour religion over non religion is it not also illegal and unconstitutional for atheists to be disbarred from holding public office?
That is true, and in fact the Supreme Court has ruled to that effect, which makes those few laws that remain unrepealed in a few states null and void and unenforceable even though they remain in the statutes.
Do you not think these two examples illustrate that the dominance of Christianity over all other belief or non belief systems means it is treated more favourably when it should be treated absolutely equally?
Not really. The First Amendment provides explicit protection for the free exercise of religion, it does NOT provide any protection whatsoever to any individual against having to view or endure such exercises of religion, including in the public square. The reason that the Ten Commandment plaques are an issue is because Atheists want to scrub religion from the public square and relegate it by law to private homes and churches, but the Constitution expressly forbids the Congress, or any other governmental agency or agent from doing so. And this is why the courts are divided on this issue, just as they are divided on the issue of Christmas trees and Nativity scenes on public property.
The reason for this division is that the court recognize that there is a significant distinction between displays of religion in the public square and "an establishment of religion" by the government. Allowing a religious display like a Nativity scene on the lawn of City Hall does not threaten to "establish" a state religion, even if its presence makes someone of another religion uncomfortable, it is merely an expression by members of the community of their religious beliefs. So long as the forum is a public one and anyone who wishes to erect a display of a religious nature is permitted to do so under an equal and neutral set of regulations regarding the use of public property for displays and demonstrations, then one religious display is legally identical to another and the government is forbidden to deny one form of religious expression based on its content while allowing another based on its content. The government must remain neutral with respect to the content of such displays and may only regulate ALL displays as necessary to properly manage and protect public property.
The fact is that when the Atheists challenge a Nativity scene in some small town on First Amendment grounds they are simply wrong in saying that a "religious display" is prohibited by the First Amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is prohibited by the First Amendment is
discrimination among religious displays competing for display space based on the content of the religious speech of the display. In other words, if the Christians can erect a Nativity scene, which they can, then if a Muslim wants to erect a religious display, or a Jew wants to do the same, or an Atheist wants to do the same, the government must remain carefully neutral in selecting which displays may be erected and which may not and may only base their decisions on secular, non-religious criteria having to do with the proper administration of public property.
The problem with the Atheist groups who oppose Nativity scenes on the specious argument that the government is favoring Christianity by allowing the Nativity is that this is most often not the case. The truth is that most governments know full well that they cannot engage in religious favoritism or discrimination and so they permit a Christian Nativity scene alone
because nobody else has requested permission to erect any other kind of religious display in that place at that time.
The fact that we mostly see Nativity scenes erected on public property around Christmas has to do with the nature of the holiday and the desire of Christians to celebrate their religious holiday using creche displays and not because governments are deliberately excluding other religious displays.
In the same way, if Jews want to erect a menorah and a Jewish star around the time of Passover they have every right to do so and the government will be compelled to grant them a permit under the same general regulatory conditions as anyone else.
Indeed, they can erect such displays whenever they like, but the fact that no such displays are found in conjunction with Nativity scenes is not in and of itself evidence of governmental favoritism or discrimination,
it is evidence of the disinterest of other religious groups to erect their own displays at that time in that place. They could do so if they wanted to, but they don't want to, so they don't, and governments duly permit whatever religious displays are applied for without discrimination.
In places where this has been adjudicated and the courts have explicitly addressed historic Nativity scenes, such as in one town in California that has had one for more than 50 years, what has happened is that competing religions, including Atheists, have been granted permission to put up "competing" displays in the same location. In some cases, due to limited space assigned for such religious free speech, lottery systems have been set up to allow random selection of displays to ensure there is no institutionalized religious favoritism or discrimination taking place. In other places, Satanist displays have been set up right next to Christian displays.
So the issue is far more complex and nuanced than you suggest and these issues have been debated and adjudicated for decades now, and more and more often courts are denying Atheist demands to scrub religious displays and activities from the public square (or public property, like after-hour use of schools for religious clubs and churches) by rejecting the Atheist argument that people have a right to be free FROM the visible evidence of free religious practice. No such right exists or has ever existed. The free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment by its very nature excludes and denies the Atheist construction that any publicly visible expression of religion is unconstitutional if it makes someone else, like an Atheist, feel "uncomfortable" or "unwelcome" in public spaces.
It is only the actual activities and functions of government itself, and it's paid agents and officials that are expressly barred from engaging in religious expression, favoritism or discrimination during the performance of their official duties.
Thus, a building inspector is forbidden from demanding that an applicant pray with him before granting him a building permit and a judge cannot compel a defendant to state his religious beliefs, much less base any of his decisions upon anyone's religious identity or beliefs.
But none of those constraints apply to private citizens in public places. A citizen may pray during a city council session, or during a public concert, or in front of the Supreme Court, or before talking to a building inspector. Citizens may, as community members, seek permission to use public property for religious uses or observances consistent with good management requirements by the overseeing government authority in the same way, and to the same extent that secular organizations or individuals may seek permission to use those facilities. The mere fact that the purpose of the use is for religious expression does not make that permission an act of "establishing religion" by the state. Indeed, because like freedom of speech, free exercise of religion is expressly protected by the First Amendment, such uses of public property, where appropriate are actually more strongly protected against government denial or interference than other non-free speech and non-religious activities (like a company picnic).
Did Jefferson not state that the majority should never dictate to the minority how or what it should think? For under the Constitution of the United States are not all men and women equal no matter what?
Yes, but what's your point. Being equal does not mean that anyone has a heckler's veto over the free exercise of civil rights by others merely because they might be annoyed or offended by the other person's otherwise lawful and peaceable activities.
The fundamental concept of Jefferson and the rest of the Founders is one of mutual tolerance and respect for the peaceable exercise of individual liberties of every kind by every other person. The simplest homily I can give you is "If you don't like what you see or hear, avert your eyes and stop your ears because your distaste imposes no burden on others to avoid offending you."
And THAT is what the courts are increasingly telling Atheist zealots who bitch and moan about every religious thing they have to endure seeing or hearing anywhere and wish to legislate out of existence, or at least legislate out of public view.
And that's exactly what the courts should be telling Atheists: "Go fuck yourselves you intolerant, bigoted, arrogant assholes, you have no right not to be offended."
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
