2Dbunk wrote:
There is no guarantee that the attitude of the Courts could become more conservative, becoming more sympathetic to the dictates of religious practices. But I think your fears are unfounded for the moment. The fact that we are having this discussion is indicative of the strength of the First Amendment.
A key phrase in you quote above is "for the moment".
Yes, I agree, in fact I have no fears "for the moment". My fears are for the future, which aren't even personal fears since I'm fairly old and have no family so I'll be leaving this world fairly soon anyway and not be leaving anyone behind.
Still, I think it would be very sad to see the USA deteriorate into a religious theocracy. Could that happen? Yes I believe it most certainly is
possible. Hopefully not probable. But if a bunch of like-minded religious fanatic were to gain control of the White House, and Congress, they could actually use the First Amendment to enforce their theocracy onto the nation.
How so? Well, religious fanatics (and even religious moderates) are already preaching on radio stations encouraging their followers to support RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. And what they consider to be religious rights is the right to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, etc.
So if these types of religious fanatics (or even moderates) were to gain control of the White House and Congress, they could pass laws to support their right to practice their "Religious Beliefs" which could even include teaching their religious doctrine in public schools a "Religious Right".
I listen to local religious stations once in a while and you might be surprised what they are pushing for.
Hopefully these kinds of people will never gain control of the White House and Congress. But the fact is that it's
possible that they could.
That's all I'm saying. Get the wrong people in control of the White House and Congress and they will
interpret the First Amendment to be protecting their rights to practice their religion openly, even in their jobs, including the job of holding public office.
This is precisely what they are saying on these religion radio stations. They want to put their God "back" into Government because from their perspective the USA was founded on Christian principles to begin with (as false as that may be) they still believe it.
2Dbunk wrote:
I would like to see the First Amendment changed from ". . . Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion." to
"Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of conscience." thereby completely recognizing legitimacy of Atheism.
That could be just as dangerous or even more so.
Free to exercise your conscience? What exactly would that mean?
Could you kill your neighbor because your conscience told you to?
I have no clue what "
free exercise of conscience" even means.
I think they should do away with any words like "practice" or "exercise" religion or conscience.
Instead they should just say that you are free to BELIEVE whatever you like as long as you obey the laws of the land, and just leave it at that.
To say that people are free to "
practice" religion is already problematic. That implies that they should be able to do whatever their religion says they should do. Like I say, if your religion tells you to kill people for certain sins, should you then be free to "
practice" that religion?
I don't think so. And fortunately to date, we haven't been allowing people to "
practice" religion when it violates the law. But one could argue that the First Amendment actually says that Congress shall make NO LAW that prohibits the
"practice" of religion. From my vantage point, that a seriously troublesome amendment. If a religion tells people to kill people for certain sins, then technically this First Amendment proclaims that Congress cannot make any laws against that practice.
How is that not problematic?