First Amendment Need not Apply

[quote name='CTLesq']Because the only thing I have to know is that its not a recognized religion by the government.

Why don't you people come back when you have some basis in law other than if we all aren't treated the same (even with material differences that invalidate the argument) than its discrimination?

CTL[/QUOTE]

If I may quote myself here:

[quote name='alonzomourning23'] http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_rel.htm


Quote:
U.S. Court decisions:

Some court decisions which have recognized Wicca are:

topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]An important ruling of a state Supreme Court was in Georgia: Roberts v. Ravenwood Church of Wicca, (249 Ga. 348) in 1982. It was similar to Dettmer v Landon, below.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The District Court of Virginia declared in 1985 (Dettmer v Landon, 617 F Suup 592 [E. Dst. Va.]) that Wicca is "clearly a religion for First Amendment purposes....Members of the Church sincerely adhere to a fairly complex set of doctrines relating to the spiritual aspect of their lives, and in doing so they have 'ultimate concerns' in much the same way as followers of more accepted religions. Their ceremonies and leadership structure, their rather elaborate set of articulated doctrine, their belief in the concept of another world, and their broad concern for improving the quality of life for others gives them at least some facial similarity to other more widely recognized religions." 1 This was a landmark case.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Judge J. Butzner of the Fourth Circuit Federal Appeals Court confirmed the Dettmer v Landon decision (799F 2nd 929) in 1986. He said: "We agree with the District Court that the doctrine taught by the Church of Wicca is a religion." Butzner J. 1986 Fourth Circuit.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A case was brought in 1983 in the U.S. District Court in Michigan. The court found that 3 employees of a prison had restricted an inmate in the performance of his Wiccan rituals. This "deprived him of his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws." More details[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A case Wheeler v Condom was argued before a U.S. Postal Service Administrative Judge regarding who had the right to pick up mail addressed to The Church of Y Tylwyth Teg (a.k.a. Y Tylwyth Teg), and The Association of Cymmry Wicca and delivered to a Georgia post office box. The 1989 decision recognized both groups as valid religious organizations. 2[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Many other cases are listed in the Welsh Witchcraft web site. [/font]
[/quote]

And even if such court cases didn't exist, you can't outlaw something that's harmless just cause it's unpopular. Like camoor said, would you have supported the romans 1950 years ago when they persecuted christians, since christianity wasn't recognized by the government?

Also, as someone else mentioned, the military recognizes it as well.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']There's the problem that the federal government declared it national ground. If they take the private ownership, I think it should still be allowed to exist unless it blocks construction or something of federal nature. What I mean is, unless the governmen has active plans for the spot, the cross should stay because it was there before the land was made public. Besides, it was a memorial to soldiers who fought in WWI, for Christ's sakes. We have a national holiday commemorating the same idea.[/QUOTE]

And if it had been a non-religious memorial there wouldn't have been a problem. Do you see how it works? Religious displays on public lands are a problem. Private land - no problem. Non-religious - no problem.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']And if it had been a non-religious memorial there wouldn't have been a problem. Do you see how it works? Religious displays on public lands are a problem. Private land - no problem. Non-religious - no problem.[/QUOTE]

Cemetaries are generally privately owned, right?

But why are they a problem? I thought that we were allowed to express our religion however we like. I mean, if I saw a Star of David marking a place where someone died, I wouldn't think "holy crap they are practicing religion, do away with it". Same with wiccans. I don't like what they preach, but if I saw one in public I would just make fun of them under my breath and go on with life. I've already stated that my problem is that people have to get pissed about insignificant things, then we have petty arguments like this because the person was, as I said, insecure.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']

Why don't you people come back when you have some basis in law other than if we all aren't treated the same (even with material differences that invalidate the argument) than its discrimination?

CTL[/QUOTE]


Basis in law??... um how about the FIRST ADMENDMENT

Now you are just being dense. Child protection IS a seperate issue. By your "logic" if a child looks abused but the parents are Christian, they shouldn't be investigated because "Christians wouldn't do that".

The only thing the ruling is trying to do (once again, if you read the article) was "protecting" the child from confusion. Kind of like , if your child was taught logic at school, they would be confused because it wasn't mentioned at home.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The ones around me are.[/QUOTE]

mmkay. I was going to say, if any are publicly owned, then why aren't people whining about the crosses on headstones.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I wonder how far Martinsville, VA is from Arlington National Cemetery...[/QUOTE]

I love Arlington. My grandfather's buried there. Thread hijack, baby.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Basis in law??... um how about the FIRST ADMENDMENT[/quote]

How about: no.

[quote name='usickenme']Now you are just being dense.[/quote]

This from someone who argued that his brother and sister were both family court attorneys which somehow implied that you therefore had some inside knowledge on the subject.

[quote name='usickenme']Child protection IS a seperate issue. By your "logic" if a child looks abused but the parents are Christian, they shouldn't be investigated because "Christians wouldn't do that".[/quote]

Not at all. However in your pervese attempt to smear Christianity (or any other recognized religion, for that matter) I am sure it appears that way.

[quote name='usickenme']The only thing the ruling is trying to do (once again, if you read the article) was "protecting" the child from confusion. Kind of like , if your child was taught logic at school, they would be confused because it wasn't mentioned at home.[/QUOTE]

Again protecting the child within the context of a divorce decree from a "religion" which is not recognized by the state. If you were talking about a major religion that was recognized by the state then you might have a point.

But you aren't and you don't.

Onto more fun:

[quote name='alonzomourning23']And even if such court cases didn't exist, you can't outlaw something that's harmless just cause it's unpopular.[/quote]

I am not arguing to outlaw anything. Your cases are easily distinguishable from what we are talking about. They addressed ENTIRELY different issues that the right of a parent to teach "religious" teachings from a "religion" that isn't recognized.

This isn't outlawing anything.

[quote name='alonzomourning23'] Like camoor said, would you have supported the romans 1950 years ago when they persecuted christians, since christianity wasn't recognized by the government?[/quote]

I have no problem with that.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, as someone else mentioned, the military recognizes it as well.[/quote]

NO. NO. NO. The ACCOMODATE it, they don't recognize it.

Do you people just not understand that different factual circumstances result in different legal results?

I might also add that the decision of one federal circuit court is only good for that jurisdiction.

CTL

CTL
 
Military Courts of Justice in the U.S. have also found Wicca to be a valid religion, deserving of protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In United States v. Phillips, (42 M.J. 346) in 1995) the concurring opinion by Judge Wiss stated: "First, Wicca is a socially recognized religion. It is is acknowledged as such by the Army."

I don't recall the first amendment having an exception for "non-mainstream religions"


also look at United States v. Seeger

"This decision establishes an expansive definition of what constitutes religious-type beliefs. Provided that the belief is not strictly personal and the person claims that the beliefs serve the same function as a traditional religious belief, the state should recognize its validity"

Justice Tom Clark wrote about that same case..."Local boards and courts are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible."


Heck, radical pro-lifers are more dangerous than wiccans but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to expose their children to their beliefs.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']This isn't outlawing anything.[/QUOTE]

I'm not certain what you consider to be a state of being "outlawed" (perhaps basic criminalization, perhaps individually-specific prohibitions, etc.); however, the news article cited on the first page had this to say:

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."
Click to expand...

Suppose that the parents continue to teach and practice Wicca around the child; will the child be placed in protective custody? Will the parents be given fines, jail time, or other legal sanctions?

What's most bothersome to me is that a religious ideology is being given substandard treatment in our court system (one that does not place the child in harm's way, or have a heavy belief in animal sacrifices, as some religions currently contesting their rights of rites (ha!) do).

What's more bothersome to me is that some people, in this thread being CTL (though he's certainly not alone), seem to have no problem whatsoever with our government deciding that one religion is non-mainstream, and thus abnormal, relative to the more mainstream - and thus presumably normal - religions.

Here's what I propose: as always, a simple set of questions.

CTL: (1)Do you think it perfectly acceptable that our government decides which religions a parent can or can not teach their child?

(2)Do you think it acceptable that our court system threaten sanctions if a family practices religion?

(3)Do you believe that christianity is superior to all other religions, and that no one other than christians have it "right" (I'm being purposely general, I'm not going to bother dealing with various differences in christian sects)?

(4)Would you approve our government making criminally punishable the practice of religions such as Wicca or Islam?

myke.
...that's all.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Military Courts of Justice in the U.S. have also found Wicca to be a valid religion, deserving of protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In United States v. Phillips, (42 M.J. 346) in 1995) the concurring opinion by Judge Wiss stated: "First, Wicca is a socially recognized religion. It is is acknowledged as such by the Army."

I don't recall the first amendment having an exception for "non-mainstream religions"
That case addressed the following two issues:

[font=Courier New,Courier]WHETHER THE LOWER COURT MISINTERPRETED THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. COFFEY, 38 MJ 290 (CMA 1993), TO REQUIRE THAT AN APPELLANT, WHO WAS NO LONGER CONFINED, HAD TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WHILE CONFINED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL POST-TRIAL CONFINEMENT ON APPEAL.[/font][font=Courier New,Courier]II[/font][font=Courier New,Courier]WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN ADMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING UNSWORN HEARSAY.[/font]
Nothing else. Enjoy your dicta some other time.

[quote name='usickenme']also look at United States v. Seeger

"This decision establishes an expansive definition of what constitutes religious-type beliefs. Provided that the belief is not strictly personal and the person claims that the beliefs serve the same function as a traditional religious belief, the state should recognize its validity"

Justice Tom Clark wrote about that same case..."Local boards and courts are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible."


Heck, radical pro-lifers are more dangerous than wiccans but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to expose their children to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Quoting a case out of context without a cite is meaningless.

I am going to Yanks Red Sox.

Try to come up with some more sad arguments for me to shoot down.

CTL
 
OMG

Man I rarely post in this forum but this case is crazy, and this CTL guy is hilariously on crack about how FREEDOM OF RELIGION works in this fuck ing country.

#1) Stop putting "quotes" around "Wicca" and maybe you would realize what you are saying about how the government should handle religion.
#2) How many more times does someone need to show that Wicca is indeed a real religion, recognized by the government?
#3) The Government doesn't have any official stance on the superiority or popularity of a religion

So you're saying, if your religion isn't popular, then the government can legislate you not to teach it to your children?

Sounds like a pretty effective way to eliminate some minority religions. fuck them anyway, only big religions need protection - because it's the big religions that need it. :roll:

Somebody doesn't have an intrinsic understanding of of the idea of freedom of religion, and the way the government is supposed to protect it. Somehow you have this idea that only "major" relgions that are "officially" recognized have to be protected. :roll: Back that up if you want to try to claim it. Oh wait, you can't, because that's a fucking ridiculous idea.


The first amendment says this:

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
Click to expand...

Not this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of [A POPULAR OR OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED RELIGION, INCLUDING HEREIN LIST: Top 5 Most popular RELIGIONS] 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
Click to expand...
 
It's funny, the 1st Amendment was there to protect organized religion (Christianity, in particular) but does nothing other than harm it, now.
 
[quote name='Rich']It's funny, the 1st Amendment was there to protect organized religion (Christianity, in particular) but does nothing other than harm it, now.[/QUOTE]

Are you freaking kidding me. You really think that the founding fathers wrote the first amendment because christianity was endangered? Sorry Rich, but you are just another education casualty of "No Child Left Behind"
 
[quote name='camoor']Are you freaking kidding me. You really think that the founding fathers wrote the first amendment because christianity was endangered? Sorry Rich, but you are just another education casualty of "No Child Left Behind"[/QUOTE]

Endangered? No. But it was there to protect it.
 
[quote name='Rich']Endangered? No. But it was there to protect it.[/QUOTE]

It was there to protect all religions. The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. If you want to see the religion they belonged to, go down to Alexandria, VA and look for the tallest building in town.
 
[quote name='Rich']Endangered? No. But it was there to protect it.[/QUOTE]

One of the main goals was to stop church gaining real political control, and to keep politics out of church affairs, neither is being done here.

But, seriously, when the references to god are in deist form, when many of the founding fathers were deist, and when only 2 and a half (lie/perjury being the half) of commandments are illegal, it's nearly impossible to come to your conclusion.
 
Rich, I think you are way off the mark. My pastor is a strong strong proponent of the first admendment. Basically, because he wants to protect the church from a state influence. He told me is worried about the gov't overshadowing the message of Christ (salvation through grace) and instead focusing on side issues. The central theme of Christ's life wasn't homosexuals are evil or lowering taxes but you wouldn't know it from the evangelicals of today.

My dime-story pychological theory is evangelicals got all fired up by Passion of the Christ. They saw how persecuted Christ was and want to join in. So now every little thing that does't promote their views gets turned into "persecution". They really have no clue.
 
I still can't believe that the religion of every supreme court justic, of practically every u.s. president, of the overwhelming majority of judges, politicians, lawmakers and civilians can claim to be the "silent" majority or the persecuted ones.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I still can't believe that the religion of every supreme court justic, of practically every u.s. president, of the overwhelming majority of judges, politicians, lawmakers and civilians can claim to be the "silent" majority or the persecuted ones.[/QUOTE]

Social movements research (something I'm admittedly new to) seems to indicate that it's easier to mobilize people who believe they (1) are being politically threatened, (2) have something to "defend" (e.g., abortion, affirmative action), (3) are led to believe they have no political power, and the deck is stacked against them.

There's a reason that the anti-abortion movement didn't develop until the early 1970's, the anti-gay-marriage movement didn't evolve until recently, and so on. I suppose the argument is really simple, that it's very hard to mobilize those who are lying comforably at the top. That's where manipulation comes into play.

myke.
...I just read a brief update on this case, after finding the telephone office number for Judge Cale Bradford, who made this decision; the father of the child has attempted to make sure that people *do not* call and hassle the judge, or e-mail him with threats or other remarks. The parents are appealing the ruling at the moment, and perhaps don't want to "rock the boat" (which makes them fools). Furthermore, I don't recall if the original article mentioned that the court investigator (fancy term for 'social worker,' mayhaps?) remarked that, because the child, a 9-year old boy, practiced Wicca with his family, but attended a private Catholic school, that he would inevitably become confused by the potential contradictions of the two practices. This led to the judge's decision, so perhaps it is half the judge's fault, and half this fucking bag of hammers case worker who doesn't want people to learn various, potentially contradictory practices, has such an obvious favortism to chrisitian faiths that she might as well be Wal-Mart's book rack, or has never ever been to a Catholic school, where, in most cases, a small portion of students are not Catholic.
 
Trust me, I know what religion the founding fathers practiced. I'm a Deist, remember? I'm well aware of where the religion originated.

I still can't believe that the religion of every supreme court justic, of practically every u.s. president, of the overwhelming majority of judges, politicians, lawmakers and civilians can claim to be the "silent" majority or the persecuted ones
Click to expand...

How are they NOT the silent majority when they do nothing as a result of all the court cases in the last 30 years that overtly go against their will and beliefs as a majority in this country.
 
[quote name='Rich']Trust me, I know what religion the founding fathers practiced. I'm a Deist, remember? I'm well aware of where the religion originated.



How are they NOT the silent majority when they do nothing as a result of all the court cases in the last 30 years that overtly go against their will and beliefs as a majority in this country.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Because, if they did go with their religious intuition, they'd be activist judges, like the fuckball on page 1 here.

myke.
...constitutionality and religious correctness don't correlate all the time. The judges' job is to enforce constitutionality. Didn't we fucking go over this already?
 
Has this thread moved beyond civil discusion and into a heated pissing match between a hand full of over zealous minds that refuse to agree to disagree?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Has this thread moved beyond civil discusion and into a heated pissing match between a hand full of over zealous minds that refuse to agree to disagree?[/QUOTE]

Stop using the word zealous!
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Stop using the word zealous![/QUOTE]

I've only used it twice in the past 20 posts... :lol:

Its such a cool word... it starts with Z!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. Because, if they did go with their religious intuition, they'd be activist judges, like the fuckball on page 1 here.

myke.
...constitutionality and religious correctness don't correlate all the time. The judges' job is to enforce constitutionality. Didn't we fucking go over this already?[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I forgot how fucking offensive voluntary moments of silence and a crosses for headstones are.
 
[quote name='Rich']Trust me, I know what religion the founding fathers practiced. I'm a Deist, remember? I'm well aware of where the religion originated. [/quote]

You want to explain then how they intended this to be a christian nations (and not just a nation full of christians)?



How are they NOT the silent majority when they do nothing as a result of all the court cases in the last 30 years that overtly go against their will and beliefs as a majority in this country.
Click to expand...

Civil rights issues are not the domain of the civilian population for one. Second though, you continuously confuse being on the losing side with being silent. They may go down, but they don't go down without a fight (segregation, school prayer, evolution, abortion, gay marriage etc.).
 
[quote name='Rich']Oh yeah, I forgot how fucking offensive voluntary moments of silence and a crosses for headstones are.[/QUOTE]

Moments of silence are allowed in public schools, public prayers are not. Part of the problem is the indirect social ramifications. If I'm in a very religious, bible belt town, and they decide they are going to hold a prayer every morning during announcements in homeroom, not standing and not praying is essentially a moral/political statement and will have negative consequences for the individual.
 
[quote name='Rich']Oh yeah, I forgot how fucking offensive voluntary moments of silence and a crosses for headstones are.[/QUOTE]

Which religion has the market cornered on moments of silence?

myke.
...Now, if the (public) school mandates that time be used for christian (or any other denomination) prayer, that's unconstitutional.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You continuously confuse being on the losing side with being silent. They may go down, but they don't go down without a fight (segregation, school prayer, evolution, abortion, gay marriage etc.).[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I see the religious involvement in segregation (religious people might promote segregation, but perhaps I don't see religious leaders doing that), but with the others, through the church, religous organizations have greater opportunity to mobilize groups of like minded people.

Let me put it this way: If you want to mobilize environmentalists to protest something, where is the first place you would go?

If you want to mobilize people to protest abortion rights, where is the first place you would go? Churches, of course.

The church is the reason that the civil rights movement was so organized. I recommend Doug McAdam's "Political Process and the Development of the Black Insurgency, 1930-1970" as a account of that.

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not sure I see the religious involvement in segregation (religious people might promote segregation, but perhaps I don't see religious leaders doing that), but with the others, through the church, religous organizations have greater opportunity to mobilize groups of like minded people.

Let me put it this way: If you want to mobilize environmentalists to protest something, where is the first place you would go?

If you want to mobilize people to protest abortion rights, where is the first place you would go? Churches, of course.

The church is the reason that the civil rights movement was so organized. I recommend Doug McAdam's "Political Process and the Development of the Black Insurgency, 1930-1970" as a account of that.

myke.[/QUOTE]

Segregation was the weak link, it involved many of the same groups and the klan was often linked to the churches and everything else for that matter (more so in before the real civil rights movement). They would often enter churches, during mass, make a sizeable donation then leave (to show the worshipers they were good christian folk). Basically, it wasn't so much a religious fight, but a fight with support from similar groups.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Segregation was the weak link, it involved many of the same groups and the klan was often linked to the churches and everything else for that matter (more so in before the real civil rights movement). They would often enter churches, during mass, make a sizeable donation then leave (to show the worshipers they were good christian folk). Basically, it wasn't so much a religious fight, but a fight with support from similar groups.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the klan was making too many donations to Catholic churches. :)

One of the sickest parts was they would pre-arrange these meetings with the pastors so it wasn't like they were unwelcome guests.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Rich, I think you are way off the mark. My pastor is a strong strong proponent of the first admendment. Basically, because he wants to protect the church from a state influence. He told me is worried about the gov't overshadowing the message of Christ (salvation through grace) and instead focusing on side issues. The central theme of Christ's life wasn't homosexuals are evil or lowering taxes but you wouldn't know it from the evangelicals of today.

My dime-story pychological theory is evangelicals got all fired up by Passion of the Christ. They saw how persecuted Christ was and want to join in. So now every little thing that does't promote their views gets turned into "persecution". They really have no clue.[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I don't think the klan was making too many donations to Catholic churches. :)

One of the sickest parts was they would pre-arrange these meetings with the pastors so it wasn't like they were unwelcome guests.[/QUOTE]

I only know catholic services, are non catholic services not called mass or something? I didn't mean to indicate they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top