Religion and the Constitution
QUESTION: In order to control the growth of Islam in the United States, would you support an effort to repeal the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in favor of a revised amendment that would eliminate the highlighted language of the amendment as it now stands (see below)?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
NOTE: If you should decide to leave a comment, please explain your choice. Also, this question is not a response to any move (that I know of) to repeal the First Amendment. It is merely designed to stimulate discussion.
posted by M. | 10:24 AM
34 Comments:
I dare say you won't get many takers on this one. Not only are you personally not an expert of such matters, but everyone sees your little friend Buckeyeasshole perched ready to pounce on any innocent comment with the usual outlay of nonsensical cuts and pastes. No doubt he'll cut and paste this comment. Buckeye thinks he's an expert because he's known people who are experts. Long stretch.
This video says it all. I checked out a few things it stated and it's all true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
Fast Eddie--
I don't expect many of our right-wing flamers to comment constructively on this because most of them are cowards. If it means anything, I think all religions that claim legitimacy through invisible, imaginary gods are absurd, and that includes Islam and Christianity.
M,
Of course then that makes you an expert.
Certain Conservative Republicans have tried to replace the wording of the religious portion of the 1st Amendment for some time now.
In 2002 before Congress:
Istook's third attempt to change the text of the Constitution now reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The United States and the States shall not compose school prayers, nor require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity."
It failed as did all his and others previous attempts:
The Istook amendment is only the latest in a nearly four-decade-long attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early 1960s against mandatory, school-sponsored prayer. Attempts to change the Constitution and "restore" coercive school prayer to the approximately one-half of the nation's school districts that required or allowed it in 1962 failed in 1964, 1967, 1971, and 1984.
Altering the wording of a existing amendment makes that amendment void. The new version becomes the amendment. The old version ceases to have any authority or force.
The goal has always been to over turn all the court cases that that have ruled against religious right's (conservative) position since the 1940s.
SOME TRIVIA: February 27, 1896. ELO, Central School teacher, Isabelle Little, fired for teaching from the Bible.
Eddie--
I claim no expertise. That's your line. I just tell you what I think. You can avoid the issue in as many ways as you wish. What does that make you?
Bozo--
Whenever you can do something other than insult your host, I'll start posting your comments again.
Buckeye--
I knowingly used the word "repeal" in terms of the First Amendment. Any new amendment could retain the desirable elements of the repealed amendment--namely, protection for speech, assembly, petition, and the press.
WHAT MAKES A EXPERT? (or at the very least someone who is recognized and respected for their knowledge on a topic)
Let me offer some thoughts on that topic:
When an organization, a religious organization at that IIRC, does a study and creates a list of people from all around the country who they feel, based on that study, qualifies as a expert. They publish that list, that tends to be a good start.
When a person writes articles on a topic, that tends to carries some weight.
When a person writes articles and they get recognition from say the LOC for example that carries some weight.
When there is breaking news in a area and a person gets emails from CBS News and FOX News asking for comments etc that tends to add some weight.
When a person gets emails from a sitting Judge on a Federal Court of Appeals inquiring about that persons views on church state that adds a bit more to credibility.
When one gets many emails from teachers from elementary school to middle/Jr high school to high school to college thanking that person for things they have written etc that helps some as well.
When one's work is cited in books and articles and is quoted in at least one book, when part of one's work is included in a PBS series that puts more weight to the equation.
When one is contacted by various attorney's complimenting a person on their work as well as various respected authors and or scholars on that topic that means something too.
When one is asked to become a historical researcher for a person who is preparing a case to be argued before the SCOTUS that has meaning. Some of that research was cited in various official briefs submitted to the SCOTUS.
When one creates a web site on a topic that has achieved national recognition and will in a couple of months probably pass the 2 million mark for log ons that means something as well.
Generally speaking most unbiased intelligent people would consider that person to be a expert or at the very least someone who has earned recognition and respect for their knowledge on that topic.
Matt....What is your position in regards to this situation.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/03/24/school_district_refuses_to_grant_muslim_teacher_three_week_vacation_for_mecca_hajj,_doj_sues
What ever happened to "The Wellsville Zone". I miss it.
The US is the most "freely" religious country in the world. The reason those 16 words in the 1st Amendment.
Now note, I said freely. I know that some Islamic countries maybe be very religious but how much is willing and how much is a result of laws and peer pressure?
We have a diverse culture and we have members of most of the worlds major religions as well as many sects and denominations of some of those religions.
To removes the free exercise clause and establishment clause or reword them would totally and completely alter everything and would in time turn religious freedom into a OK Corral shootout.
M. said...
Buckeye--
I knowingly used the word "repeal" in terms of the First Amendment. Any new amendment could retain the desirable elements of the repealed amendment--namely, protection for speech, assembly, petition, and the press.
If the free excercise clause and [dis] establishment clauses were removed and all the other words remained that would leave them in effect still.
However you asked for reasoning so I gave you that. I approached it differently. Whether you totally removed them or you reword that one section you get the same result. Religious freedom would be seriously damaged. All existing laws that were decided under the the old Clauses would be null and void, they would carry not authority anymore.
You would have to revert back to the original constitution to find what protections for religious freedom there might be or that courts might agree on or you have a vacuum and all sorts of groups will rush to fill that vacuum in their own images.
I didn't address that directly simply because no one not even the most extreme of the extremes have ever publicly suggested that. I think they realized the Pandora's box that would open with no guarantees it could ever benefit them.
The language of the original constitution doesn't say much about religion. Not religious oath to hold office which was replaced by the 1st amendment. No so Help me God in the prez oat and you can swear or affirm when u take a oath. That's it because the original constitution was written under the thinking that it couldn't be done unless the Constitution specifically said it could be done.
The constitution didn't give the authority to support religion in any way oif form as many stat4e constitutions did. It didn't acknowledge religion as many state constitutions did. That was what made it so unique for its time. But even at that many founders felt that freedom of religion wasn't protected hence the BORs with it free exercise clause and [dis]establishment clause.
But that thinking disappeared a long long time ago.
Fred--
If the situation described is true, I think the decision on the Muslim teacher is ridiculous and unfortunate. Religious persecution by the government is illegal, but special benefits for religious people (of any brand) should not be available.
Buckeye--
You have pointed out the real problem with Islam or any other religion in the United States. The First Amendment protects any religious group from interference from the government, so any political movement--no matter how subversive--must be tolerated as long as it comes dressed as religion.
Perhaps it's time to solve some of our federal and state budget problems by collecting taxes on the profits of religious organizations. I wonder how many fewer preachers and churches we'd have in the U.S. if that were to happen?
This post is nothing more than propaganda designed to sway people into believing that being a Christian is a bad thing and to distrust the government. Typical Liberal garbage.
M,
How did you make out with your study-research-reading of the Koran?
Impose Sharia Law in East Liverpool and see what happens. Lots of places for sale or rent!!
Flamer--
I did not find the Koran interesting at all, so I didn't even come close to finishing. To be honest, it's one of the dullest books I have ever seen. I can't figure out why so many people find it so compelling. It's just another way for priests to control people.
Abomb--
If you have nothing to say, why brag about it? This post requires some thought. It forces you to realize that the Constitution does not specify a particular religion. You've already declared you're not up to discussing the issue, but I'll ask anyway in hopes that someone else will have something to say. What can we do about the spread of Islam in the United States?
Fast Eddie--
Buckeyelo knows more about church-state issues than anyone I know. He knows more about it than all of you right wingers put together. And yes, he is an expert. All you have done is attempt to post personal insults. This is your contribution to the discussion.
Are there any right wingers out there capable of something other than mindless personal attacks? Of course, Bob is out. Bozo the Clown has become nothing more than a mudslinger. Fast Eddie and Abomb have admitted they can't discuss the topic. Is there anyone? Anyone at all?
M; You have a vile habit of throwing around the worst insult, racism, whenever anyone disagrees with you or the President. As a member of the Tea Party and a conservative/libertarian you insult me when you insult Tea Party members. I have strong ideological and policy differences with the President and when I bring them up i get "but pay no mind to the darkie?
I will stop insulting you when you stop insulting me.
Bozo--
I've never been involved in a political or religious cult in which my personal identity is merged with the group, so I don't understand your problem. Even so, mindless ad hominem attacks are not appropriate. Do keep in mind that I run ORL--not you or any of your angry friends. So if you want to visit the site, you have to put up with my opinions. If that's not acceptable, go elsewhere. I couldn't care less.
I still think not being able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is an infrigement on our right to free speech. (I mean, if you're stupid enough to not look around first to check for a fire before trampling someone else, you should probably be quarantined.) Obviously, I'm a fan of "Anything Goes."
By the way: If irresponsible comments which may cause others to do something foolish aren't covered by the Bill of Rights, why are Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh tolerated by our government?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bozo--
Apparently you don't understand that you are a newbie here, and newbies don't get to lecture the host on how he manages his web site and career. If you have something to say about the main post, say it. Otherwise, keep quiet.
M. said...
Buckeye--
You have pointed out the real problem with Islam or any other religion in the United States. The First Amendment protects any religious group from interference from the government, so any political movement--no matter how subversive--must be tolerated as long as it comes dressed as religion.
[end quote]
Political movement? Perhaps but anyone hiding behind religion hasn't free reign. If you doubt that ask the Mormons, or ask the Peyote smoking native Americans.
The biggest enemy to the free exercise of religion in this nation in recent years was none other than a ultra conservative SCOTUS Justice,Anthony Scalia. He totally gutted the Free Exercise Clause. The burden used to be on the state to prove it had a compelling interest in preventing this or that practice or act within a religious context. That is no longer the case. There is no burden of proof on the state any longer.
Matt, you sure called this one right. I haven't seen one comment from the right that addresses your post. You either have religious freedom or you don't, and to alter the first amendment would ruin it for people of all faiths. We are going to have to put up with the muslims and wage an ideological war against them.
Carl--
The growth of Islam (or any theistic religion) is a problem for any modern, progressive society. The United States has way too many competing interests to progress in a straight line. We're always going to be a nation of fits and starts, gains and losses. Right now we appear to be in a regressive trough.
The reason you aren't getting the comments you want from the right and Christians is because there's no argument with this. There's nothing to say.
Your attempt to stir up a trouboe has failed miserably. Perhaps if you brought up killing babies or illegals or any of the numerous failed programs of obama. That might get them going.
Good excuse, Eddie, but it won't wash. The reason is that the righties can't understand complex issues. If it's not simple-minded Obama bashing and name-calling, our righty posters aren't up to it.
All YOU have done is avoid the issue at hand. You keep talking, but you say nothing.
You wouldn't like what I'd say.
Fast Eddie said...
You wouldn't like what I'd say.
[end quote]
well if it were the usual offered here by certain people, i.e. insults, name calling, personal attacks, opinions offered as fact with no actual evidence to support it, code words you're right.
You are already guilty of some of the above.
The topic, Religion and the Constitution, with the added feature of possible results or effects of repealing the Free Exercise Clause and [Dis]Establishment Clause. That was a topic that could have resulted in a good serious discussion between a number of people but it does require some knowledge of the subject.
What was your first contribution to this discussion? Did it actually pertain to the topic? Nope, not at all.
What was your second contribution to this discussion? Did it address the topic at all. No it didn't.
Your third and fourth contributions? Did they contribute anything to the topic? No they didn't.
M, it looks like you have finally chased the conservatives! Honestly this site has been taken over by the crude tea partiers to the point that it was hard to read the comments page without cringing with embarassment. My answer is NO on changing the 1st amendment. I agree with Carl that the only way to fight the Moslems is to counter them with better ideas. If that is Christianity, then so be it. I don't see many Christian terrorists in the world.
Butch....Please explain how this site (which Matt has total control) has been taken over by the Tea Party? You and your paranoid rants are laughable.
Fred--
I won't try to answer for Butch, but you are right. I do control ORL, and I am the one who evaluates, posts or rejects comments. I blame no one but myself for letting the comment pages get out of hand.
I am now enforcing the no ad hominem rule that I announced months ago, which means that many of our nastiest commenters have fled. Those who continue to try to post vicious personal attacks are rejected.
Butch,
Christian terrorists? Are you referring to current campaigns or past? I can give you a slew of examples from the past...and maybe even current examples, albeit more subtle forms...
Post a Comment
<< Home