Freedom of Religion

[Confused]

I am starting this thread here for those who aren't participating in The God Delusion debate because I think it warrants a much wider range of attention.

In the book, the author states a case in which in 2004, a 12 year old boy in Ohio wore a t-shirt to school that said "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told the student not to wear it, the parents sued the school not on the basis of freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. The courts agreed with the parents. The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona argued that the t-shirt wasn't about hate speech, but religious speech. Hence it warrants freedom of religion.

Another cited example is a church in New Mexico that believes the use of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine found in hoasca tea enhances their ability to understand God. The US Supreme Court in 2006 agreed, despite the fact that the drug is illegal. The church got an exemption. However, in the case of cannabis for chemo patients, though few states legalized it for medical purposes, the federal government wont recognize this and can still prosecute you for it use based on the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court.

So my question for debate should be obvious:

What is the limitation of freedom of religion. Is it being abused?

[McCulloch]

Keep in mind also that the free exercise clause does not include the concept of freedom from religion.

Try to keep in mind that the US constitution is not a holy infallible document; nor is it one that all participants on this forum operate under. However, many of our constitutions have similar freedom of religion measures. Personally, I cannot see how the individual right to freedom of religion can be in any way real without freedom from religion. I think that many courts agree with that interpretation.

[Cathar1950]

I am starting this thread here for those who aren't participating in The God Delusion debate because I think it warrants a much wider range of attention.

In the book, the author states a case in which in 2004, a 12 year old boy in Ohio wore a t-shirt to school that said "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told the student not to wear it, the parents sued the school not on the basis of freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. The courts agreed with the parents. The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona argued that the t-shirt wasn't about hate speech, but religious speech. Hence it warrants freedom of religion.

Another cited example is a church in New Mexico that believes the use of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine found in hoasca tea enhances their ability to understand God. The US Supreme Court in 2006 agreed, despite the fact that the drug is illegal. The church got an exemption. However, in the case of cannabis for chemo patients, though few states legalized it for medical purposes, the federal government wont recognize this and can still prosecute you for it use based on the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court.

So my question for debate should be obvious:

What is the limitation of freedom of religion. Is it being abused?

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government; it does not grant or impart rights to citizens. The issue here is in the free exercise clause of the first amendment that has often been referred to (as you did here) as "freedom of religion." The free exercise clause states that Congress (and, thanks to the 14th amendment, government in general - federal, state and local) is prohibited from passing any legislation (school rules would, for this purpose, be legislation) that interferes with the free exercise of religion. Thus, a citizen is free to exercise his religious faith without interference from the government. There is no constitutional authority for the government to restrict it in any way.

Keep in mind also that the free exercise clause does not include the concept of freedom from religion.

It means no theocracies. Rights and civil liberties are not granted they are assumed under the Constitution which is to be interpreted by the Court.
Freedom from religion should be a right and liberty as much as the freedom to observe and believe your religion. Of course this all falls under our cultural moras as we don't allow polygamy, killing out children because they talk back, slavery or killing you new bride at her father's doorstep if you find out she is not a virgin.

.

[Chancellor]

Keep in mind also that the free exercise clause does not include the concept of freedom from religion.

Try to keep in mind that the US constitution is not a holy infallible document; nor is it one that all participants on this forum operate under. However, many of our constitutions have similar freedom of religion measures. Personally, I cannot see how the individual right to freedom of religion can be in any way real without freedom from religion. I think that many courts agree with that interpretation.

Because the American constitution was intended specifically to proscribe the limited powers of the federal government; it does not grant rights. What other countries choose to do is their business and has no bearing whatsoever on the government established under the American constitution.

[Chancellor]

Keep in mind also that the free exercise clause does not include the concept of freedom from religion.

It means no theocracies. Rights and civil liberties are not granted they are assumed under the Constitution which is to be interpreted by the Court.
Freedom from religion should be a right and liberty as much as the freedom to observe and believe your religion. Of course this all falls under our cultural moras as we don't allow polygamy, killing out children because they talk back, slavery or killing you new bride at her father's doorstep if you find out she is not a virgin.

.

Well, no, it doesn't mean no theocracies. It means exactly and only what it says (though it is true that the form of government established under the Constitution was clearly not a theocracy). I agree that the Constitution does not grant rights/civil liberties but, as I said, the free exercise clause does not include within it the concept of freedom from religion (I'm referring to the very narrow statement in the first amendment regarding the "free exercise" of religion). As for your statement that the Constitution is to be interpreted by the Court, that is simply wrong! There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution (as amended) giving the Courts the authority to interpret the Constitution itself. If you want to claim freedom from religion as a right, you cannot look to the Constitution for it because the sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government. Now, if you want the government to have the power to enact legislation that will protect people from being exposed to religion then the first amendment must be amended to eliminate both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause since government would then cease to be neutral regarding religion.

[McCulloch]

As for your statement that the Constitution is to be interpreted by the Court, that is simply wrong!

The courts' job is to make decisions about what is or is not against the law based on evidence and legal precedent. In order to do that, they have to interpret every law that they are asked to apply. There is also a hierarchy of laws, with the constitution being the highest law of the land. That means that if a federal or state law has been passed, the courts can rule that it is contrary to the provisions of the constitution. This is part of what the judicial branch of government does. It is called interpreting the law. Maybe you don't quite see that in your literalist view of the constitution, but it is part of what makes the law work and has been for quite some time.

The sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government.

I challenge you to provide evidence to support this view of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This certainly does not state that the sole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the government.

[Cathar1950]

As for your statement that the Constitution is to be interpreted by the Court, that is simply wrong!

The courts' job is to make decisions about what is or is not against the law based on evidence and legal precedent. In order to do that, they have to interpret every law that they are asked to apply. There is also a hierarchy of laws, with the constitution being the highest law of the land. That means that if a federal or state law has been passed, the courts can rule that it is contrary to the provisions of the constitution. This is part of what the judicial branch of government does. It is called interpreting the law. Maybe you don't quite see that in your literalist view of the constitution, but it is part of what makes the law work and has been for quite some time.

The sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government.

I challenge you to provide evidence to support this view of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This certainly does not state that the sole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the government.

As I recall the three branches of our government are the Court to interpret, the House and Senate to create the laws and the Executive to enforce them. Of course the press to lie to us as they are owned by corporations which are served by all.