Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof



its a hard balance to maintain, because people who dont wish religion to be 'respected' are often indirectly lobbying for its exercise to therefore be 'prohibited'


for instance, in the case of jehovah witness refusing certain procedures

I dont personally see the case as being as simple as focusing on religion,, religion is a big part for jehovah witness, but if you take that out, there is a bigger issue of people being permitted to decide their own medical care(for whatever reason) without government interference


same with pulling kids out of school, if you take the religion out, there is a case to argue that a guardian/parent should be able to choose not to participate in the public school system IF They have an adequate alterior means of preparing their own children


,,but people focus SO MUCH on religion , that they see these things as specifically favoring religion, they see that , automatically, the presence of religion as a factor means government is either respecting or prohibiting


,,,for me , the simple correlation between someone of strong religious conviction winning a case about exercising such religion being the equivalent of 'respecting an establishment of religion'

is flawed,,, because the only two choices there are in ANY case are to win or lose,,,which in most peoples minds means to respect a decision or to prohibit it,,,,,, and both sides of that coin are disallowed by the constitution

so the only possible answer if we take the stance that any decision involving religious custom or culture is unconstitutional, is to not even permit such cases to be decided upon in the first place

but that violates plenty of other rights,, doesnt it?

i don't think you'll find a case where an ADULT witness was prohibited from refusing a medical procedure. in the case of an adult refusing treatment for a child though then child neglect or endangerment comes ito play.




and parents do have the option not to participate in the public school system and they do have adequate alternate means for schooling their children.




but the founders specifically entended to focus on religion. hense the initial wording in the first amendment.




not so in the least. the first amendment was written as a prohibition agains congress, or government in general, passing laws respecting an establishment of or prohibiting the practice of religion. what is in most people's minds is of no consequence as regards the constitution.



no, not in the least. ANY decision involving religious custom or culture is not unconstitution. the only decisions involving such are those made by congress if that decision is contrary to the first amendment such as a decision to allow open prayer in school.

would a decision to allow open prayer be 'respecting the establishment of religion' or would it be not allowing such free exercise to be 'prohibited'?

the decision would have to lean one way or the other....

would that mean only the COURTS would decide and congress shall not intervene with any specific 'law',,,but if congress makes no law on what will the courts base their decisions....

etc...etc...etc...

In this country the Christian religion has been allowed to violate the amendment at many levels. That is why now when it is being balanced they feel persecuted.

It is just a balancing thing that is happening. The religious will still have their churches and they can practice all they want at home. They can even say a prayer at the table at a restaurant with their family, no problem. But it doesn't need to be in any public arena. No public functions where all types of religions are present and the prayer is being said over the loudspeaker for all to endure.

nothing whatsoever. it was an example of a single case having broad application. but if you insist on a case that involves religion, the ten commandments was ordered out of a federal court house by the supreme court and that single case likewise has had broad application. such a case filed again will not reach the supreme court because of starre decisis, a ruling decided earlier applies to any future cases. like a woman's right to choose will not see the light of day again in court neither will the ten commandments being displayed be heard again in court. the highest court in the land has already decided the issue and it is now the law of the land.

why, just because it is a prayer? thats discriminatory. How can a member of an audience dictate to a performer what they can or cannot say over a loudspeaker? So it shouldnt be against the laws to get on a loudspeaker and say other things which may be offensive to some people, but if its a prayer,, its automatically not protected under the same freedom of speech?

I dont quite believe thats how its meant to be executed either, what that advocates is discrimination AGAINST religion

if it is something that is mandated for all, it becomes an issue, but if it is something an individual choosed to say(even on a loudspeaker) they should have the same individual right as any other speaker that speaks their mind over a pa system,,, where anyone in listening range has to 'endure'

Amen.

But the person either needs to say a prayer in all different religions present or not say one at all. It is respect.

The public venue needs to express that no religious activities catering to one religion, which prayers do, will be done on their grounds to respect all religions at their venue.

Of course Christians have never faced respecting other religions before so you can see their outrage at having to treat others with the same respect as they should have...lol

so how have other 'laws of the land' been amended, or even struck down or changed?

it can still come before the courts again,, as long as there are petitioners and lawyers who have some type of case

it was once the legally held concept that a man 'owned' his wifes body and could therefore not be prohibited from using it(Charged with rape),,but that changed

likewise, although it is now a legally held concept that life in the womb is not 'viable', that legal concept could someday change or evolve into something else which would make the issue something worth revisiting and amending,,,

Those laws were written not determined by the supreme court. The change of the laws may have happened in the supreme court. But there are lots of laws that have not been reviewed by our supreme court at this time.

why? why does what comes out of my mouth get to be dictated by anyone else? Do I also have to speak in any forseeable languages spoken by all listeners? ..thats not respect, thats a grand sense of entitlement on the part of those listening,,,


Im not disrespecting anyone by openly saying a prayer anymore than I am disrespecting them by sharing my view or opinion in a public forum, its my right to have and voice my opinion, as it is theirs, so how is it disrespect? and when has such a thing as this perceived potential 'disrespect' been somehow banned when anyone else does it



'respect' is not adjudicated by law at all,, or we would also have laws against racist slurs which may 'offend', or sexist slurs which may 'offend',,,which would easily cause all the scantily clad beer commercials to go off the air and likewise all the billboards,,,

the possibility that ones speech or opinions may not address everyone elses, is not a standard that can be upheld or should try to be,,, instead the listener should perhaps have the RESPECT to accept the speaker as they are and as they(the speaker) is comfortable speaking,,,

all speech isn't free, mh. you are not free to speak threats against the president. you are not free to yell fire in a theater when there is no fire. you are not free to joke about a bomb in your suitcase when going through security at an airport and because the first amendment exists you are not free to speak over a microphone about your religion in a venue that is upported by tax dollars. to do so whould be the government respecting and establishment of religion which is prohibed by the first amendment.



and that is precisely what the founders intended. to descriminate religion intirely out of anything to do with religion.



every individual has every right to speak their mind over a loudspeaker so long as it does not include religion or the various other topics like i've mentioned. it's not about the loudspeaker. it's about the venue where the loudspeaker exists.

sidenote: all the public venue needs to express is that the opinions of those participating are not their own

its done all the time to allow INDIVIDUALS freedom to speak their hearts and minds,,,

this is true, but there is nothing STOPPING such laws from being revisited

are we really comparing saying a prayer to things that can cause public panic like yelling fire or bomb?

wow

I guess this is a great example of that 'broad' interpretation I was talking about

most public venues have some government funding supporting them, this has little to do with what INDIVIDUALS representing THEMESELF can say when they are holding events there

not being free as an individual to have religious expression would also be violating what the constitution gives government the power to do

See if you can find one that the supreme court has revisited. I can bet there are not many if there is even one.

Because the supreme court makes sure they hash it all the way out so no need to revisit.

1973– The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, declared all the individual state bans on abortion during the first trimester to be unconstitutional, allowed states to regulate but not proscribe abortion during the second trimester, and allowed states to proscribe abortion during the third trimester unless abortion is in the best interest of the woman's physical or mental health. The Court legalized abortion in all trimesters when a woman's doctor believes the abortion is necessary for her physical or mental health

1992– In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the trimester framework in Roe v. Wade, making it legal for states to proscribe abortion after the point of fetal viability, excepting instances that would risk the woman's health

2003– The U.S. enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and President George W. Bush signed it into law. After the law was challenged in three appeals courts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was constitutional because, unlike the earlier Nebraska state law, it was not vague or overly broad. The court also held that banning the procedure did not constitute an "undue burden," even without a health exception. (see also: Gonzales v. Carhart)
2007– Supreme Court upholds the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

well, slavery laws, for example, were struck down by the thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. prohibition was struck down by the twenty first amendment. abortion laws were struck down by the roe decision, etc.



sure, anybody can sue for anything but no lawyer not wanting to be sanctioned or possibly disbarred would take on a case where starre decises applies, especially when the ruling court was the supremes.



indeed it did change and such a case filed now would be tossed post haste. why? because such cases have already been decided. starre decisis is not binding. the perfect example is the dred scott case. the supremes do over-rule themselves at times but only when society has changed sufficiently. but if anything, the court is ruling more in favor of separation over the years than what you'd obviously like.



no. the court never ruled the viability of life in the womb. they stayed completely out of that issue in roe and even stated so in the majority opinion. they did impose the trimester system we have in place today but they never did rule on the viability of the fetus. this may be the only case to be made as far as abortion goes. is the fetus a citizen afforded rights under the fourteenth amendment. nobody has tried this approach because to give the fetus rights would trump the rights of the woman to choose.

yes, the court does reverse itself at times. thought you wanted to stay with religion. lol.

no we're comparing a prayer to nothing. you seemed to be confused that all speech was free. i gave you a few examples of speech that is not free. but of course you knew that and simply wanted to argue the point further.



no, it's a terrible example of the 'broad' interpretation you were talking about. none of the banned speach envolved a single case. now you really are just arguing to argue.



okay. let's leave it at this. you read the costitution differently than i do or the courts. i'm beginning to repeat myself and i don't like doing that.