Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThey both speak to the relationship of the government to religion*. The first clause indirectly protects the second clause because the establishment of a State religion might violate the right to free expression of religion of citizens who are not adherents.
Of course they are, but they both speak to religious freedom rights.
---
* http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo, when the League claims this:
They both speak to the relationship of the government to religion*. The first clause indirectly protects the second clause because the establishment of a State religion might violate the right to free expression of religion of citizens who are not adherents.
---
* http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
"When the religious freedom rights of any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts."
is it your contention that it is refering strictly to the free expression of religion, and not to any other sorts of rights the Establishment Clause might speak to that aren't covererd by the Free Exercise clause? That's really contrived, especially since you admit that they would take action against a law making Lutheranism the national religion.
Originally posted by vistesdInterestingly enough, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government could constitutionally reimburse parents for cost of transport to parochial schools (Everson v Board of Education, 1947).
Part of the rationale behind my post above is: How exempt is exempt? The right to send your children to religious school? That is only an option for those who can afford it--and it's costly.
The bare minimum for 'exempt' would be exemption from all activities/limitations that are in violation of my religious code - provided it does not violate similar rights of others.
Re: your post above
Your experience is interesting - mine was probably diametrically opposite. I was a Catholic born into a predominantly Hindu culture and raised in an Islamic nation that was polemically anti-Zionist. If anything, my Christian upbringing that upheld the Jews as the "people of God" (combined with the violent anti-Jewish sentiment of the newspapers) led me to be quite strongly pro-Israel very early in life. Until I recently read of Marshal Pilsudski's rout of the Red Army, I thought the victory of Israel in the Six Day War was the single greatest military victory in the modern era.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI said they might take action - not that they necessarily would. I understand the terms "religious freedom" and "freedom of exercise of religion" to be synonymous - hence the specific activity of the League that we are talking about does not IMO oblige it to resist a violation of the Establishment Clause unless it perceives the violation to encompass the Free Exercise Clause as well.
So, when the League claims this:
"When the religious freedom rights of any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts."
is it your contention that it is refering strictly to the free expression of religion, and not to any other sorts of rights the Establishment Clause might speak to that aren ...[text shortened]... ce you admit that they would take action against a law making Lutheranism the national religion.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes my post above answer these questions?
George Washington didn't author the Constitution and his proclamation runs contrary to it. So do many aspects of our government, such as "In God We Trust" on our money and our federal holiday of Christmas. Where is the League when you need them, with all these religious freedom rights being violated?
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, but I doubt your assessment of how the League wishes to be perceived is accurate. I don't think it intends to make itself perceived as an institution that doesn't care about strict Establishment violations. I maintain that their mission statement is deceptively false.
Does my post above answer these questions?
Originally posted by lucifershammerSuppose the United States passes a federal law requiring all people to attend a Baptist service every Wednesday evening if they would not otherwise be exercising some religion at that time. That is, if they would just be watching TV instead, they are now required to go to a Baptist service. They don't have to pray or sing; they just have to be there. The only other exception would be that those who can afford it may pay a $10,000 annual Get out of Church Free tax.
I understand the terms "religious freedom" and "freedom of exercise of religion" to be synonymous
Would you say that US citizens have an equivalent amount of religious freedom before and after the enactment of the law in that scenario? If not, then those terms are not in fact synonyms to you. In particular, religious freedom encompasses freedom from compulsion to place oneself in a government-mandated religious environment. However, if you would say that that law does not affect religious freedom, then we have vastly different notions of the concept.
Note that making school attendance mandatory and then having a religious ritual as an official part of the school day, whether or not students are compelled to participate, is essentially the same as having mandatory Baptist church attendance. Both violate one's religious freedom.
Here is a basic overview of the competing theories of the Establishment Clause at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
In truth, the cases are all over the place and there is no coherent doctrine from the Supreme Court at this time. The Pledge of Allegiance case was ducked under the extremely offensive rationale that a father who pays child support and has physical possession of his child almost 1/2 the time has no "standing" to sue in court on her behalf for an alleged violation of her rights.
Both clauses regarding religion in the First Amendment were to protect the greater fundamental right of conscience. I personally don't see much conflict between them; the Framers from experience knew that a state-established religion invariably led to an unhealthy concentration of power to one group. The Framers believed in a limited government that was to be granted only those powers which would enhance fundamental rights; I fail to see how the establishment of a religion can serve any useful purpose in enhancing human freedom. As such, it is not a legitimate tool of the type of government the Framers foresaw. The purpose of the Free Exercise clause is self-evident.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you see the problem with your analogy here? School attendance is not mandatory for the purpose of having an assembly with the Pledge in it - whereas the Baptist service attendance was for such a purpose. So, a better analogy would've been to say that Government offices should hold a Baptist service each Wednesday morning prior to work.
Suppose the United States passes a federal law requiring all people to attend a Baptist service every Wednesday evening if they would not otherwise be exercising some religion at that time. That is, if they would just be watching TV instead, they are now required to go to a Baptist service. They don't have to pray or sing; they just have to be t ...[text shortened]... the same as having mandatory Baptist church attendance. Both violate one's religious freedom.
In any case, I've pointed out earlier with the "Lutheran Pledge" example that free exercise includes the right to exempt oneself from situations and/or activities that are contrary to one's religion. That I wouldn't have to pray or sing is irrelevant - simply being there might be contrary to my religion.
Here, mere attendance at a Baptist service is sufficient to constitute participation in said service. Hence, the tax you mentioned compels one to adopt religious practices in opposition to one's beliefs and, hence, violates free exercise.
In particular, religious freedom encompasses freedom from compulsion to place oneself in a government-mandated religious environment.
I would say it does not. Free exercise requires simply that one be free to practise one's beliefs and refrain from practising what is not in accordance with one's beliefs* - both without compulsion.
Note that making school attendance mandatory and then having a religious ritual as an official part of the school day, whether or not students are compelled to participate, is essentially the same as having mandatory Baptist church attendance.
I disagree. I've already pointed out one difference between school attendance and Baptist church attendance earlier.
Simply because a religious ritual is part of the school day, it does not become the same as the mandatory church attendance example you gave. For that to be the case, students must be compelled to be present when the Pledge is being recited (even if they do not recite it themselves). Free exercise would dictate that such students should be permitted to leave the assembly at that point without penalty.
---
* Assuming all the usual constraints such as State compelling interests, similar rights of others etc. etc. etc.
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND INVIOLABLE
VATICAN CITY, DEC 1, 2005 (VIS) - This morning, the Holy Father received members of the International Theological Commission, led for the first time by Archbishop William Joseph Levada who, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is also president of the commission.
In his address, the Holy Father referred to the subjects under discussion in the plenary session, such as the theme of children who die without receiving Baptism, in the context of God's universal plan of salvation, the uniqueness of Christ's mediation and the sacramental nature of the Church, and the theme of natural moral law. This latter subject, he said, "is particularly important for understanding the foundation of those rights that are rooted in the nature of the person and that, as such, derive from the will of God the Creator Himself."
He went on: "Prior to any positive law emanated by States, such rights are universal, inviolable and inalienable, and must be recognized as such by everyone, especially by the civil authorities who are called to promote them and guarantee that they are respected. Although in modern culture, the concept of 'human nature' seems to have been lost, the fact remains that human rights cannot be understood without presupposing that man, in his very being, is the bearer of values and norms that must be rediscovered and reaffirmed, not invented and imposed in a subjective and arbitrary manner."
At this point, said Benedict XVI, "dialogue with the world of the laity is very important. It must be made very clear that negating an ontological foundation of the essential values of human life, inevitably leads to positivism and makes law dependent on the trends of thought dominant in a society; thus rendering law an instrument of power, rather than subordinating power to the law."
The Holy Father then remarked on the importance of the "statute" and methods of Catholic theology. On this subject, he highlighted the fact that "the theologian's work must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living Magisterium of the Church. To consider theology as a private concern of the theologian is to misunderstand its very nature. Only within the ecclesial community, in communion with the legitimate pastors of the Church does theological work have meaning. Such work certainly calls for scientific competence, but also and above all for the spirit of faith and humility of one who knows that the real and living God, subject of his reflections, infinitely surpasses human capacities."
"At this point it may be asked," said the Pope: "Is theology thus defined still a science that conforms to our reason? Yes. Reason, science, and thinking in communion with the Church are not only not mutually exclusive, but complement one another. The Holy Spirit introduces the Church to the fullness of truth, the Church is at the service of truth and guides people by educating in truth."
AC/NATURAL MORAL LAW/LEVADA VIS 051201 (500)