As far as the government prohibiting the free expression of religion…

I believe there are at least a couple of cases that we’ve overlooked. They are probably overlooked due to how basic and broad spread the laws are as well as due to how miniscule the affected religious sects are in respect to larger religious populations within the US.

I don’t believe I have to cite specific laws that prohibit and define “vigilante” justice or “taking the law into one’s own hands”, as I’m sure we all know without doubt that there are a multitude of such laws to insure that our government holds the sole authority for convicting, sentencing and the carrying out of sentences in the USA and prevent vigilante justice at the hands of any others for any reasons.

That being said, those laws DO, in their very principal, prevent Islamic and Muslim factions that practice Sharia law as a religious practice from doing so within US borders.

Obviously these laws were not written with that intent, but with the intent of assuring everyone a fair trial for their alleged crimes. These laws do, however, prohibit the more violent aspects within the practice of Sharia Law.

Again, other laws that I don’t believe require citing, as they are common knowledge, which also prohibit the free expression of religion, are the laws which prohibit polygamy.

Besides Mormonism, some sects of Muslim and Islamic based religions practice polygamy as not only part of their religious practices, but in some cases are thought to be a requirement for the attainment of heaven.

There is irony in the fact the very laws that prohibit these religious practices at the same time insure that religious practices are not capable of superseding our legal system; a standard that is upheld in constitutional law in this country, whether you believe that the constitution implies a separation between church and state or not.

Whether or not the language in the ever changing Constitution of the United States allows every religion the right to physically practice every aspect of their religion anywhere in the US or whether it simply preserves every religion the right to believe…and every possible interpretation in between… will be argued for longer than there are stars in the heavens.

So, personally, I look at the larger picture and feel privileged to live in a country that, while no-one will ever agree to everything, gives me the right as a free woman to an education, to work or run a business and to date who I choose…without being stoned for it.

Relative to that blessing, I don’t see the rest as being so very important.

in relative to the world , there is always someplace else worse off and I can appreciate that too

that being said though, it doesnt necessarily rule out that improvement is needed in my own back yard or in my country

I feel blessings and I also see places for improvement , like in truly equal treatment when it comes to how people express themself and what they believe, whether it be religious or not

I dont necessarily see an absolute conflict in the examples given because in those same books are also lessons of forgivenss and NON violence which would also be in line with our own laws

regarding vigilantaism,, there is also verse in the quran which states

“But if someone is steadfast and forgives, that is the most resolute course to follow.” (Qur’an, 42:43)

and the bible

" Colossians 3:13
Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you"


so though contrary laws in a culture limit the expression making it less free,, it still does not completely PROHIBIT any form of the expression , it allows for the forgiveness


as to polygamy, thats another one I dont feel the laws is infringing upon,,, because in such religion the authority is not the STATE but the CHURCH,, so indeed their church may still aknowledge polygamy without it being necessary that the state does...(ie, the church will call and recognize the many wives, the state will only aknowledge or document one)


just as many churches will continue to not recognize a 'gay' marriage although the state will,,,, church and state are different entities which dont have to agree on things like that


,,and even with those things said, it is something different than exactly what I posted about which is the 'expression' which refers to 'speech' or 'writing' or 'public display', not overt actions against others. I think it has gotten out of hand when noone can be censored BUT those who speak or believe something that can be construed as religious. ITs a scary form of discrimination that should be no more tolerated than discrimination of homosexuals(which is really discrimination against what is said or done because thats how people assume what anothers sexual preference is). As a citizen,, it should no more matter what my religious belief is or how and when I express it than it should what my sexual preference is or whether I choose to 'express' it.

When religions violate a human being's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness against the laws of the land, then those religions probably should not be in America.

To believe whatever you want should not be infringed upon, as long as you are not breaking the laws of the land or committing what is commonly called human rights violations.

Religions who believe they have the right to take justice into their own hands, in this country, can only legally work to change the law but they are not allowed to break the laws to practice their religions and still live within this society.

The Amish community do not pay taxes or social security and are basically independent and sovereign, but as far as I know they aren't allowed to burn witches at the stake or execute members of their society.

Reservation Indians are separated from the U.S. society and pretty much have their own laws. I'm not familiar with to what extent their laws differ from ours.

States have different laws but they are still somewhat subject to the Federal laws.

When it comes to religions who practice violent things, mutilation and murder, well, that is simply not going to be allowed because it is against our laws. If said religions want to practice that kind of stuff I would invite them to leave this country and go find someplace else.

While I agree wholeheartedly with your own interpretation of their scriptures, no matter how clear the print on the pages are to us, our saying so will not dispel an entire religious belief system…so for now anyway, they are a religious sect with the same rights to believe as any other…in our country anyway.

That being the case, we can only be glad that they ARE bound to and thus limited by our legal system in how far they can take the practice of Sharia Law here.

If we were allowed to limit which religions we extend freedom of expression to, I imagine there would be a lot of religions that would not make the cut based on the argument that "your own scriptures say your religion is BS". Haha.



Ok, that one was a stretch. Of course that is what they argue...but I see your point in that this is not such an infringement to practice it, but to be given the same legal benefits as single marriages.

or in this case, be given the same legal right to express my beliefs as a non religious person


quite literally , the 'if you dont agree with it dont do it argument' should be applied equally to all

I dont have to have a gay marriage, and non religious dont have to believe what I am saying

if gay marriage is not being 'forced' upon one who doesnt practice it but must still accept and be in its presence

likewise, my religion is not 'forced' upon one who doesnt believe it but must still accept my right to and be in my presence when I express it

This one is very close to me, as I have an Amish background myself.


This is the basic breakdown of why this is allowed. I'm not saying it's right or wrong...it's just how it's legally justified.

The Amish actually have the same tax breaks as other churches do. The key word is "church", which is something the Amish do not have....therefore the tax break is given to the congregation. The Amish congregation is in religious practice every minute of every day and their lands, roads, buildings and businesses are all owned by the congregation.

Again...not saying it's right or wrong...but in the court decisions regarding this, the amount of US tax money used to support the Amish communities...virtually none...was also weighed into the decision made of if and how they should be taxed.



Absolutely, a state law is bound to the minimum confines of any Federal law...therefore a state can institute laws that are more stringent than the Federal laws but cannot cross over them in terms of being more lenient.

not so. state laws can be more or less lenient than federal laws. certain murders for instance are federal capital crimes that are punnishable by the death penalty. several states have no death penalty. state laws are subject to the same constitutional tests as federal laws but that is where restrictions on state law ends as regards the federal government.

you couldn't be more wrong. many people, mormons included, are serving time in jail after being convicted of polygamy. name one state that tolerates marrying more than one spouse regardless of what the church recognizes. another example where the establishment clause is readily applicable.

states dont tolerate marriage to more than one spouse as defined by the STATE (That is, one cannot have a marriage 'license' and state documented marriage to more than one person)

however, a church can certainly perform whatever ceremonies they wish and recognize within their church those involved in whatever capacity they wish to

so the church can decide to marry (According to their traditions) and recognize as married anyone they choose


but people cannot have any STATE documented spousal relationship to more than one partner at a time

Regarding marriages and legality - I thought it was only a problem if you LEGALLY marry more than one person.

If you simply take two sexual partners, have kids with both of them, live in the same house, hold common property, etc etc, but never LEGALLY establish your situation as two marriages - well I thought that was fine in most states.

Does anyone know otherwise?

I know of no law that prohibits sex with as many partners as one wishes or cohabitation with as many roommates as one wishes(besides fire safety rules,,lol)

Its perfectly legal to have as many relationships as we want, but we can only be legally supported and benefitted from one at a time.

So...

Incorporate instead of getting married. Then make all the 'wifes'(husbands - equality you know) into 'corporate officers'. Legally supported by the 'corporation' with benefits.

Does it matter what the label is, as long as the loved ones are taken care of... In a way the does not violate US law.

I think it matters when the point is to get the same 'benefits' from government that those labeled 'married' do

or when the point is to force people to accept the relationship in the same way they accept 'marriage'

mh, in your first sentence of this post you said "as to polygamy, thats another one I dont feel the laws is infringing upon,,, because in such religion the authority is not the STATE but the CHURCH,," when speaking of laws and infringing upon them, the church has no authority whasoever. oh sure there is ceremony, tradition, pretend but you were speaking about laws and authority which once again happens to be the topic.

no, you are correct as far as i know. and yes, when we're talking legality and marriage the church has no say in the matter. as of course it should be.

of course, but when it comes to religion 'authority' is debatable

IF my 'authority' is God, than I can certainly construct my life around GODS authority without needing mans,, except when it comes to theivery or murder

but if GODS authority determines my marital status, I dont need the state or government to aknowledge it,,,,so polygamy laws dont actually impede my ability to have spouses in 'GODS' eyes, they just prevent me from having spouses as defined and aknowledged by the hand of government,,,

when it comes to the law, which is what we're talking about, authority is NOT debatable.

the law is indeed the law

but the law 'infringing' on a belief is a different question,, the one I was referring to

the law does not keep those who want several wives from having them, it just refuses to legally aknowledge more than one spouse at a time

those people can still have several wives, by whatever religious tradition or definition fits them,, just not by the standards of the state and that should be fine if its their religion that is central to them and not their governments definitions...

The "choice" of religion and the right to practice it is a "personal" one. If however, you try to impose those beliefs on another, it has become another matter, subject to law.

Just as a religion that condones the taking of many wives, or seduction and marriage of children, within the confines of a religious state or confine, it may be deemed acceptable, but when brought into the general public, it has then been forced onto others.

It does not make it wrong, but you have violated my rights, if I don't believe in it, to place me in a situation of observance of your beliefs.

I would expect the law to react to protect my rights, against them, and their beliefs, forced on my "quality of life" choice of a living area or confine. This goes both ways.

I may not condone prayer in the front yard of my neighbor where I must observe it, but if he practices within his home, unseen and unheard, that right is to be respected, as any should be.

Too many wars and too much death has resulted from "religion" in public and state! It is personal choice, keep it private, and all is well.

and that is a shame, in my opinion

of all the offensive things people have the right to do and express in public, that my faith is not afforded that same right

I dont see it as being 'forced' on anyone that doesnt believe it anymore than these opinions in these forums are 'forced' on me when I choose to come here...

they are individuals with individual preferences and beliefs, I dont have to agree with them and still dont feel that their expression causes them to be 'forced' on me


IM sickened that I am likewise having homosexuality 'forced' on me, political correctness 'forced' on me, political incorrectness 'forced' on me, and all these groups and their views and expresssion are protected

but I and people like me are singled out in my own expression because it is deemed by someone to be 'religious'