Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

Like you did in this post?
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/471091-us-courts-establish-government-as-the-official-religion-of-united-states/?p=7801855

 

its good to see someone finally come up with an argument that drives to the point.

The problem is that the free exercise of religion sanctions certain types 'discrimination' especially accommodating someone elses religion that to accommodate would force you to become and accessory to the commission of a sin which is a crime in the eyes of God of your religion!

this results in the commercial accommodations laws being unconstitutional!

Likewise gender, race and ethnicity could all come under valid religious exemptions with regard to certain applicable circumstances!

Hence the gvmnt has overstepped its authority and are trespassing on peoples religious rights!

 

you really need to keep it in context, I reposted to correct his interpretation since he believes I have a weak argument and posts incorrect interpretations of the cases.

seriously this is not difficult, a quick 1-2 search and you get all kinds of info on the matter.

Cornell University Law School

CRS Annotated Constitution

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

“The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”178 It bars “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,”179 prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs “to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to discriminate invidiously between religions . [Kliens]. . even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.”180 Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs.181 [Davis] Interpretation is complicated, however, by the fact that exercise of religion usually entails ritual or other practices that constitute “conduct” rather than pure “belief.” When it comes to protecting conduct as free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent.182 It has long been held that the Free Exercise[p.1006]Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.183 What has changed over the years is the Court’s willingness to hold that some religiously motivated conduct is protected from generally applicable prohibitions. (one ill-gotten issue with law is they have replaced the word 'court' with government. The use of the words court is universally valid in that context the use of the word government is not though its written to imply that)

The relationship between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses varies with the expansiveness of interpretation of the two clauses. In a general sense both clauses proscribe governmental involvement with and interference in religious matters, but there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free–Exercise–derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices.184 So far, the Court has harmonized interpretation by denying that free– exercise–mandated accommodations create establishment violations, and also by upholding some legislative accommodations not mandated by free exercise requirements. “This Court has long recognized that government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.”185

nope the government may not, each case to afford proper remedy must be heard by the courts, not under the government rights usurping umbrella.

the gvmnt and courts rather than removing regulatory code and procedures that is in violation of the free exercise clause instead insist on keeping an iron grip on the people by pretending that the only solution is to accommodate the religion rather than abolish its unconstitutional rule that trespasses upon religious rights.

 

and rights to be free of it, as well.....right?

 

For anyone who is looking, in this thread, here is Zzap's point.

 

You mean you copied and pasted someone else's words in a failed attempt to correct MeAgain's interpretation, then suggested that it was not beyond your belief that MeAgain had copied and pasted.

 

well the government has imposed its religion on gays and pretty much every religion I can think of had to take a back row seat to their god of commerce.

 

the difference I can support my version correctly without looking up cases

 

thats the abbreviated version, feel free to show where we the people who have to live under the law get a chance to vote on ANY of it k

 

Now, what are you going on about with me?

I looked and quoted what you said your point was.

 

So, I agree that government and Christianity have been bed mates for as long as I've seen evidence of Christianity.

 

I know how the world is, but I was asking you how you see it.
Freedom of and from religion for those who wish that for themselves?
I live my life that way as if I lived my life affected by the imposers of anything, it is no longer my life and one has to live and imagine the world as they wish it to be so.... In order to take back the power over their own lives.