H
Hereiam
Guest
Banning it from what?
I have no more fear about a knock on the door to confiscate my Glock or my Bible…sounds like good fodder for fear and conspiracy, but somewhat detached from reality.
- Status
I have no more fear about a knock on the door to confiscate my Glock or my Bible…sounds like good fodder for fear and conspiracy, but somewhat detached from reality.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I feel like people need to actually stop reading sensationalist headlines.
There’s a bill in the works that’s meant to stop the provision or advertising of services, and some of the phrasing in it could be interpreted to ban works saying that gay people should stop having same sex attractions (although it’s fairly clear that’s not the intent).
That’s still not exactly great, but it’s a far cry from “banning the bible”.
There’s a bill in the works that’s meant to stop the provision or advertising of services, and some of the phrasing in it could be interpreted to ban works saying that gay people should stop having same sex attractions (although it’s fairly clear that’s not the intent).
That’s still not exactly great, but it’s a far cry from “banning the bible”.
Last edited:
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
I’m struggling to see Trump as an ideal candidate like how evangelicals do. Do they gloss over his many shortcomings and half the things he says or is accused of? I truly don’t understand. It seems like some Trump supporters try to justify almost every little thing he does whether it is right or wrong and choose to ignore the brashness and insensitivity of his manner.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
That’s the thing I don’t understand. How people see Donald Trump as a godsend despite his many obvious flaws? I cannot get past half the things he says and is accused of and continue to see him as a good president.
H
HolySpirit
Guest
HolySpirit:
I can’t come up with any, but could you provide examples of how “President Trump has continued to uphold the 1st Amendment”, other than Freedom of Speech, which he seems to either push to the limit or totally subvert?
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Thanks be to God that Hillary Clinton lost the election.
H
HolySpirit
Guest
Follow
Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
Free Exercise Clause
Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]
Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:
If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]
Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem. At various times, the Court has either applied a broad or narrow application of the clause.
When the First Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S. Congress. As such, state and local governments could abridge the Free Exercise Clause as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments (this act of using the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle through which the Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states is also known as the Incorporation Doctrine).
[1] Michael McConnell, Religion and the Constitution (2002), pg. 105.
[2] Id. at 107.
[3] Richard Posner and Michael McConnell, “An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom,” 56 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1989).
[4] McConnell, note 1 above, at 102
Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
Free Exercise Clause
Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]
Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:
If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]
Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem. At various times, the Court has either applied a broad or narrow application of the clause.
When the First Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S. Congress. As such, state and local governments could abridge the Free Exercise Clause as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments (this act of using the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle through which the Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states is also known as the Incorporation Doctrine).
[1] Michael McConnell, Religion and the Constitution (2002), pg. 105.
[2] Id. at 107.
[3] Richard Posner and Michael McConnell, “An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom,” 56 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1989).
[4] McConnell, note 1 above, at 102
H
Hereiam
Guest
Twitter ring s bell? Its a soapbox where anyone is protected constitutionally from saying pretty much anything they want without regard to truth!
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Pope Benedict said approximately this; however, he included the caveat that the decision or issue(s) on which the decision is made be proportionate.
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
H
Hereiam
Guest
Agreed…now may God protect us from what we are left with.
H
HolySpirit
Guest
Follow
Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
Establishment Clause
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing and textbooks, and university funds to be used to print and public student religious groups’ publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.
One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue in Salazar v. Buono (08-472), a case which considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint
Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
Establishment Clause
The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing and textbooks, and university funds to be used to print and public student religious groups’ publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.
One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue in Salazar v. Buono (08-472), a case which considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Pray daily … or continuously.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
How is he somehow better? With half the things he’s accused of, how? His sexual harrassment of women or what he tweets about. He comes across as petty, brash and vengeful. I don’t see how his personal life and character reflect any Christian values.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
A
angel12
Guest
They don’t care. I think he was right when he said he could shoot someone on the street and not lose his supporters. They’ve found ways to either justify, or turn a blind eye to, everything. Things that, if Obama had done them, they’d have been screaming for his head.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
I don’t understand how strongly people support him honestly.
B
boclucky14
Guest
The democrats, for over a half-century, have pushed Conservatives, Christians, and Americans to follow their way. If you poke someone long enough, they’ll lash out. Voting for Trump, and supporting Trump, is us lashing out at the Democrats after half-century of “compromise” where we compromised everything and Democrats received everything. We’re tired of it. We see Trump as someone who is different from our non-backbone Republicans and someone who would stand up to the Democrats on issues.
The only way he keeps my support is that I ignore what he says - I don’t take his words seriously. If I cared about what politicians said, Obama wasn’t that bad. But I don’t care what they say. I care more about what they do (and their administration does) - Trump’s administration isn’t using the IRS against political enemies. Trump isn’t suing various organizations that don’t agree with his politics. These are all things the previous administration did do against conservative and religious organizations.
Last edited:
F
Francis
Guest
Better is a known devil than an unknown Angel
B
boclucky14
Guest
Also, on top of everything you said, we forget that, on a federal level, only 3 people have been executed since 1963. While getting rid of the death penalty federally may be good, that saves one convicted person every 18 years. It takes years for the death penalty to actually go through, and goes through several appeals and courts before being applied, even after conviction and sentencing.
Therefore, if anyone actually cared about the death penalty, they should be fighting on the state/local-level, where 99.998% of executions occur (compared to the 3 federally executed people by the federal government).
See List of people executed by the United States federal government - Wikipedia
Therefore, if anyone actually cared about the death penalty, they should be fighting on the state/local-level, where 99.998% of executions occur (compared to the 3 federally executed people by the federal government).
See List of people executed by the United States federal government - Wikipedia
- Status