The US 1st Amendment and Baby-Eating

[Purple Knight]

Does the First Amendment allow baby-eating? Because I don't see a clause that it allows religious freedom as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else or break any other laws. I see a blanket statement about the government leaving the religious alone to do entirely whatever they like. If the law prohibits freedom of religion, they can't make it. On the other hand, the bit that outlines the right to freedom of assembly does indicate it has to be peaceful. I see nothing like that in the bit about freedom of religion.

[Purple Knight]

That defeats the point of any and all constitutional protections of rights.

It seems to me this rather hasty conclusion is predicated on the assumption that rights are absolute.

Or at least, that when protecting rights, those rights should be treated as absolute, or there's no point to the protection.

It might work well in practice to simply find reasonable accommodation, but only as long as your leadership is unbiased and interested in being fair. The point of having rights protected in law seems to be for the case that the leadership will be unfair and biased if it can be. For example, take the baby-eating example. Even when the government has a compelling interest, they can choose the First Amendment instead. So it's just on their choice. We might as well have a dictator.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

The First Amendment does not preclude killing infants.

The Fourteenth Amendment does.

The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Killing a baby, by cannibalism or any other means, would deprive a child of life without due process of law. Any law which allowed taking another person’s life without due process of law would certainly run afoul of the fourteenth amendment.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

The First Amendment does not preclude killing infants.

The Fourteenth Amendment does.

The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Killing a baby, by cannibalism or any other means, would deprive a child of life without due process of law. Any law which allowed taking another person’s life without due process of law would certainly run afoul of the fourteenth amendment.

I might be reading this wrong but it says states can't make baby-eating laws. It says nothing about the higher US government.

Even if I'm wrong about that, all it says is States (whether this means US states specifically or governments in the broader sense) and laws can't eat babies. It says nothing about what those States can or can't allow individual people to do.

The way I read it, passing a law which confiscates babies to be eaten breaks the 14th. However, passing a law which allows religious people to eat babies does not.

In other words, people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, just so long as the State doesn't do it.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

The First Amendment does not preclude killing infants.

The Fourteenth Amendment does.

The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Killing a baby, by cannibalism or any other means, would deprive a child of life without due process of law. Any law which allowed taking another person’s life without due process of law would certainly run afoul of the fourteenth amendment.

I might be reading this wrong but it says states can't make baby-eating laws. It says nothing about the higher US government.

Even if I'm wrong about that, all it says is States (whether this means US states specifically or governments in the broader sense) and laws can't eat babies. It says nothing about what those States can or can't allow individual people to do.

The way I read it, passing a law which confiscates babies to be eaten breaks the 14th. However, passing a law which allows religious people to eat babies does not.

In other words, people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, just so long as the State doesn't do it.

By this logic the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…” It doesn’t say anything about individual states. So the states would be able to limit or completely outlaw any religion they wanted, or fully establish any religion within the borders of that state.

I don’t think that this is a reasonable reading of the text. It is more reasonable to say that a right stated in the Constitution is one that the state must avoid infringing upon (unless it has a compelling reason to do so), and which it must protect for its citizens.

To give an example, the First Amendment includes the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The courts have constantly said that this means the state cannot infringe upon that right without a compelling reason, and the state has to protect that right from harm by other citizens.

[Purple Knight]

I don’t think that this is a reasonable reading of the text. It is more reasonable to say that a right stated in the Constitution is one that the state must avoid infringing upon (unless it has a compelling reason to do so), and which it must protect for its citizens.

If that's true then it must protect the baby-eater in the first place if he's doing it out of religious belief.

[bjs1]

I don’t think that this is a reasonable reading of the text. It is more reasonable to say that a right stated in the Constitution is one that the state must avoid infringing upon (unless it has a compelling reason to do so), and which it must protect for its citizens.

If that's true then it must protect the baby-eater in the first place if he's doing it out of religious belief.

It must also protect the rights of the infant. Various constitutional right often come into conflict with each other and must be balanced. Historia seems to have summed it up well when he point out that right are not absolute.

[Purple Knight]

I don’t think that this is a reasonable reading of the text. It is more reasonable to say that a right stated in the Constitution is one that the state must avoid infringing upon (unless it has a compelling reason to do so), and which it must protect for its citizens.

If that's true then it must protect the baby-eater in the first place if he's doing it out of religious belief.

It must also protect the rights of the infant. Various constitutional right often come into conflict with each other and must be balanced. Historia seems to have summed it up well when he point out that right are not absolute.

One right must supersede the other in practice. I don't find any reason (except general sanity) for the rights of the infant to come before the rights of the baby-eater if he's religious.