SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:08AM
Sure. No Problem. No revision necessary, or required. I will further explain as requested, and then we can see where ignorance is. Although, it's possible that neither of us is that ignorant at all ;) Be nice.
The central tenet of the 1st amendment is not religious expression, but freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and basically your freedom to express yourself. Religion is part of it, because religious freedom is often found alongside with strong freedoms of expression. As I already stated, these are my feelings and opinions on why the 1st Amendment was created in the first place. As religious views and positions were historically used as arguments-that-cannot-be-argued-with, they were intellectually disingenuous appeals to a non-existent authority. Hence, why it made absolute sense to speak about one when speaking of the other. That was just the reality of the day in a world not too far removed from on-going witch trials, and where the church was well known for getting involved politically with governments and the power structures of society. It was the church that was the greatest oppressor historically, and religion was often hijacked for political purposes. Our founding fathers correctly recognized it as the greatest contemporary threat to the very first amendment they were discussing. In your opinion, why are they grouped together, and not separate amendments? If religious expression was so important, and a non-secular government that critical, why wasn't it with it's own language and number?
In truth, freedom of religious expression is simply redundant. The freedom of speech and peaceful assembly already guarantees we can get together and talk about the Bible, or any other religious concept we want as a group. Churches are allowed implicitly, along with entire categories of other behaviors some might find objectionable (nudist camps). Furthermore, the freedom to express religion is protected through other amendments (14th), and various laws already on the books preventing the 1st Amendment rights from being abridged. If somebody tried to enter the church and start hitting people with a shovel (or shooting them) because they didn't like the church, they would've been dragged away and charged with crimes. We even take it further today, and would charge him with a hate crime. Just about any instance of religious oppression you can come up with, I can show an amendment, or law, that would prohibit the acts oppression, and that in many cases these offenses are not tried as violations of the 1st Amendment, but felony laws. In short, the freedom of expression *is* the freedom of religious expression as well.
Why do we need to specifically say that religious freedom is granted at all? IMHO, it's strongly implied and already protected by other language. When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent. Our founding fathers literally cemented the example of the need for the 1st, directly inside the 1st. That's how much bullshit is caused by secular governments, and that's literally it's only meaning. The Constitution is mandating a non-secular government because it directly aids in the execution, implementation, and enforcement of the 1st Amendment. Governments dedication to it's non-secular status is never grounds for the claim that the religious are being oppressed as a result. Why? Government didn't come to their aid and start beating the crap out of the person who is undesirable purely based on religious views?. This is correct, government should never be enforcing any aspects of what are purely religious debates. As an example, murder and theft are *not* religious debates. For Mike to complain that government is violating the 1st, by not violating the 1st is incredible.
Also, pay attention to the grammar where I said, "as much as it was". What I'm saying is that the religious freedom aspect of the 1st Amendment was the minutia at best, or an inline example of why freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition government for redresses, etc. were so important. Granted, it's an opinion, but not one I would label as ignorant.
In any case, the freedom of speech granted in the 1st Amendment, and the religious freedoms it guarantees were never meant to make sure that undesirable activities from a religious perspective would not be allowed to continue. Our founding fathers expressly wished that activities that pissed the church off could continue, as most of what pisses off the church has nothing to do with equality for all, reasoned positions, science, ethics, or morality. The church may have figuratively represented the King Of England to them, and they recognized that ALL kings needed to be kicked out of the country. That includes Mike, and his king, the great Jesus. Regardless of how both of them feel, allowing the homosexuals the same rights as us, is not an unconscionable abridgment of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:22AM
TL;DR - freedom of religion is a subset of freedom of expression.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:53AM
Ok, I now know where your malfunction is, vocabulary. The phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems to be your problem, go look up the meaning of exercise that applies to this usage. It doesn't mean you have the right to believe, it doesn't mean you have the right to speak your beliefs; It means you have the right to EXERCISE the commandments laid down by your religious teachings.
It means a man may not even be ordered to bear arms in defense of the country if his religion forbids it; this is settled law. If the State can't order a man to war it damned sure can't order him to write words he finds to be an abomination upon a cake. Except of course the Supreme Court just made a law that says exactly that.
the religious freedoms it guarantees were never meant to make sure that undesirable activities from a religious perspective would not be allowed to continue
Um, actually it means exactly that, that within as broad a limit as possible, all men were free to live their life according to the teachings of their religion. It was the way a nation that already had a metric pantload of different religions was expected to co-exist.
In your opinion, why are they grouped together, and not separate amendments?
Being knowledgeable and wise men, The Founders realized that all the clauses were aspects of one idea, that men were to be free to believe, to act upon those beliefs, discuss them openly in the public square and in print and to petition the State based on those beliefs. That only in this way, through both vigorous, unrestricted debate AND the example of deeds as people lived their lives according to those beliefs would we slowly grow towards whatever ultimate Truth the Universe holds. All political beliefs btw derive from religious ones; yes, all of them. Not all religions are theistic, example Buddhism, Marxism or Secular Humanism. "Separation of Church and State" is just some "Shit Jefferson Said" and not part of the Constitution.
Jefferson was a great man but his Word is not Holy Writ and he was certainly not infallible. For example he totally failed to realize how fundamentally different the French Revolution was and almost lost his head over it. Another of the Founders also said the Constitution they gave us was "intended for a Religious and moral people and would serve no other." Of course that too is just something some guy said and likewise not Holy Writ or even part of the Constitution.
When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent.
No, it means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church. See The Church of England. And when that was ratified several of the States in point of fact established Churches, the 1st Amendment only says that the Federal government may not... although questionable interpretations of later amendments muddle that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:09AM
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>
> It means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church.
It is weird that someone calling for the "exact" reading would leave out a key word. It does not say "not establish" a church it says "no law respecting" a church. Exactly what Ed said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:20PM
The 1st and 14th Amendments clearly establish that The State cannot give preferential treatment to any one religion. Supporting the transition of the US into a Christian theocracy, like you are, is supporting the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.