Why ‘religious freedom’ laws are doomed

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are they doomed? Why?

Because there is no need for “religious freedom” laws, Americans enjoy the greatest freedom to express their religion in the United States than anywhere else in the world, and no where else in the world is that freedom better protected.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and its jurisprudence is the ultimate “religious freedom” law, anything else is superfluous and unnecessary. If a theist believes his religious liberty has been violated by the state, he is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

As with all other rights, the First Amendment right is not absolute, it is not the right to seek to codify religious dogma into secular law, and it is subject to reasonable restrictions by the state, in accordance with the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate. It is incumbent upon theists to understand First Amendment case law and to not incorrectly infer that restrictions placed on religious expression in accordance with the Establishment Clause ‘violates’ that religious expression.

When the state addresses religion it must do so pursuant to a secular legislative purpose; the state’s actions must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and the state’s actions must not manifest in "excessive government entanglement" with religion (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)).

Consequently the religious right’s claim that that laws requiring business owners to accommodate all patrons ‘violates’ their religious freedom is unfounded and incorrect – as the primary focus of public accommodations laws is not to have the effect of inhibiting religion or religious expression, where such laws are in fact Constitutional.

 

[Avatar4321]

I mean why else are we being targeted? Homosexuals for some reason think their lifestyle is something they were born with, yet the way they respond to adversity and criticism is by trying to remove it. Permanently. Either they're guilty about something, or have massive inferiority or persecution complexes. The more extreme ones don't want to offer any rational arguments as to why some pious man must set aside his beliefs for the tolerance of something he sees as sinful, why is that?

You know what, these are tactics used by the old style Italian Mafias. "If you want our protection, pay us, if you resist, we'll ruin you."

It's also odd considering the reaction to homosexuality is also very natural. Even if we accept their premise that it's "bigotry" and "hate," those are natural experiences. There hasn't been any really good explanation why some people should change their natural behavior because other people give into their natural behavior.

The whole premise is fatally flawed because it assumes natural = good. But it doesn't. Humanity is designed to overcome our natural urges and inclindation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Well, Guess what? Ceasar is dead. So I guess everything goes to God.

 

[Avatar4321]

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Yeah, about that. Business owners can't render unto God's which is God's. They aren't allowed. They can't serve him freely without doing something he teaches against. Now what?

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people.

Jude 1:3

Amazing how rightwingers care so much about the homosexuals, but not so much about the greedy.

It's amazing how you assume that just because someone works they are greedy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Also, how is it greedy to turn down money?

 

[The T]

Also, how is it greedy to turn down money?

First one would have to have principles, scruples and know there is more to life on this rock than just money, power...the best things in life are indeed free. God saw to that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Well, Guess what? Ceasar is dead. So I guess everything goes to God.

Caesar has a new name now, we call him the IRS. And you could of course just send your taxes to the former President on whatever money you use to pay with, care of the White House. Jesus would approve of that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

From your oh-so-unbiased link:

..what kind of signal are we sending to society if we have in essence a sign up in the inn or the bake shop that says ‘heterosexuals only,’ or ‘weddings for heterosexuals only?’

Answer: That we are a free society. A society that understands and values the right and vital importance to a functioning Republic of private property ownership. A society that allows asshole business owners to feel the wrath of the marketplace without imposing ridiculous slippery slope laws that could end up forcing a gay owned business to provide its service to the Westboro Baptist Church. That's the kind of signal we should sent...that freedom comes with with consequences and you have no right to not be offended. Stated differently, get the fuck over yourself.

Just so, but even more to the point, this kind of legislation does nothing new relative to natural, constitutional and case law!

The leftist media’s slant is hysterical demagoguery.

See link for SB-1062:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ry-have-the-right-to-deny-32.html#post8700263

 

[peach174]

The First Amendment does not allow people of any religious bent to create and enforce laws that are ONLY based on their religious tenets.

Our whole Constitution is based on religious tenets, it is based on God's Natural Law of our rights, over human rule.

That’s truly ignorant and idiotic.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II. The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

It is not based on ‘religious tenets,’ it is not based on ‘god’s law,’ it is a secular document that codifies our inalienable rights that manifest as a consequence of our humanity, having nothing to do with ‘deities,’ and indeed safeguards our civil liberties from the capricious arrogance of religious dogma that often poses the greatest threat to our civil rights.

Words taken and taught by liberal university professors and left wing academia, who have left out so many things in that above statement about our Founders and our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
That is such a biased opinion and has harmed many Americans in the teaching and understanding of our history and the two documents.
The left only teach you what they think you should know, not the whole information.
If you studied our founders writings you would be able to understand and know this.

All of our founders believed in one God who is the ruler over the Universe and who gave mankind natural rights over human law.


Just like the misreading of Jefferson's letter that says separation of church and state.
Many Americans actually think that statement is in our Constitution and it isn't.
This has been used as a secular agenda and has been so twisted to fit their ideology.
The left does this constantly where they twist the meaning of our Constitution, so that it fits their philosophy.

The statement was never meant to have God out of our government.
His letter addresses the principle of federalism.
As President Jefferson was unable to interfere in state issues. (A principle that has been trampled on for the last 100 years or so).
The Federal Government - President or congress was forbidden to interfere in state issues because of the 1st amendment.

The Danbury Baptist Association as the citizens of the Connecticut had to remedy their situation (Not President Jefferson) by amending their state constitution and statures and they eventually did.


If the Feds had not passed the RFRA law, none of the States would have had to pass a law like Arizona's.
The Feds violated the 1st amendment with the passage of RFRA and they got away with it because the citizens of America let them.
Both parties have been trampling all over our Amendment rights.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why are they doomed? Why?

Because there is no need for “religious freedom” laws, Americans enjoy the greatest freedom to express their religion in the United States than anywhere else in the world, and no where else in the world is that freedom better protected.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and its jurisprudence is the ultimate “religious freedom” law, anything else is superfluous and unnecessary. If a theist believes his religious liberty has been violated by the state, he is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

As with all other rights, the First Amendment right is not absolute, it is not the right to seek to codify religious dogma into secular law, and it is subject to reasonable restrictions by the state, in accordance with the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate. It is incumbent upon theists to understand First Amendment case law and to not incorrectly infer that restrictions placed on religious expression in accordance with the Establishment Clause ‘violates’ that religious expression.

When the state addresses religion it must do so pursuant to a secular legislative purpose; the state’s actions must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and the state’s actions must not manifest in "excessive government entanglement" with religion (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)).

Consequently the religious right’s claim that that laws requiring business owners to accommodate all patrons ‘violates’ their religious freedom is unfounded and incorrect – as the primary focus of public accommodations laws is not to have the effect of inhibiting religion or religious expression, where such laws are in fact Constitutional.

Stow it, Jones, you've been roundly refuted for the fraud that you are.

Relative to established natural, constitutional and case law, this kind of legislation is nothing new. The protections apply to all, irrespective of one's sexual orientation. The immediate purpose is to stave off the financially ruinous affects of frivolous lawsuits.

The leftist media's slant is hysterical demagoguery, and you've been exposed as an apologist for the agenda that would destroy religious liberty in the name of public accommodation.

You're a statist thug.

See link for SB-1062:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ry-have-the-right-to-deny-32.html#post8700263

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The First Amendment does not allow people of any religious bent to create and enforce laws that are ONLY based on their religious tenets.

Our whole Constitution is based on religious tenets, it is based on God's Natural Law of our rights, over human rule.

That’s truly ignorant and idiotic.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II. The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

It is not based on ‘religious tenets,’ it is not based on ‘god’s law,’ it is a secular document that codifies our inalienable rights that manifest as a consequence of our humanity, having nothing to do with ‘deities,’ and indeed safeguards our civil liberties from the capricious arrogance of religious dogma that often poses the greatest threat to our civil rights.

No. It is your ignorance on display, Professor Fraud.

______________________

Reposted from http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/342319-should-a-jewish-bakery-have-the-right-to-deny-29.html

Jones’s drivel is the tyranny of mob-rule collectivism verses individual liberty. His tripe is the stuff of Plato, Rousseau and Marx verses the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of our founding, the imperatives of natural law, the greatest proponents of which are Augustine, Calvin, Locke, Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers. This is the fascism of communism/Nazism verses the sociopolitical philosophy of the Declaration of Independence.

America is now rife with pc, multicultural nitwits who don’t grasp the ramifications of the agenda they‘ve been spoon fed in the public schools and by popular culture, which does not empower them at all, but empowers the government to systematically strip away rights and oppress. The elites get it, and regard these useful idiots as stampeding cattle trampling those of us who resist them.

Make no mistake about it, Christians and orthodox Jews are the number one target.

Why?

Because we unrelentingly stand on the imperatives of natural law, the indispensable structure of which entails the biological family and parental authority, and the sanctify of human life, the very first principles of private property, which in turn constitutes the indispensable foundation of liberty, backed by an armed citizenry, the ultimate check against government usurpation.

The Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism is extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity’s ethical system of thought. This is the sense in which American is a Christian nation, properly understood for decades by Americans, today, muddled by virtually everyone. This notion has nothing to do with theocracy. It merely goes to Judeo-Christianity’s assertion of universal individual liberty and free association predicated on the construct of universal free will. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities; they are, therefore, inalienable and absolute, granted to all unreservedly whether one be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an agnostic, an atheist and so on. . . .

One cannot extrapolate that universal principle from any other ideology under the sun but Judeo-Christianity! All other religions deny the actuality of human free will and are collectivistic in nature.

The leftist sheep of today have been conditioned to believe the revisionist claptrap that biblical Christianity plunged the West into the Dark Ages. Hogwash! It was the statist and corrupt Roman Catholic Church that suppressed biblical Christianity! The Reformation was the second breakout of biblical Christianity that made the Enlightenment and the democratization of the West possible.

Jefferson’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a paraphrase of Locke’s triadic construct of life, liberty and private property. “The pursuit of happiness” is a term of art denoting the totality of one‘s private property, including one’s own being, the members of one's immediate family for whom he is responsible and the entirety of his assets or the fruits of his labor.

Locke is not merely the father of classical liberalism, but the preeminent political philosopher relative to America’s founding ethos. It is he who in his Two Treatises of Civil Government perfected the construct of natural law, firstly extrapolated from scripture by Augustine and further developed by Calvin in terms of a formal system of sociopolitical thought. Locke’s exposition of natural law is predicated on the teachings of the Bible, his formal epistemological justification, backed one scriptural citation after another. That’s right. The man who perhaps more persuasively than any other of the Enlightenment argued against the evils of monarchy and theocracy, and the right of men to violently overthrow usurpative government based his apology for liberty on the Bible’s moral imperatives.

But this only surprises the historically illiterate, as statism is the stuff of idolatry and tyranny. God is the only legitimate ruler of the people relative to the principle of universal free will.

It’s no accident that today’s leftists, particularly in Europe, but increasing here in America as well, starting with the radical leftist professors in our universities and colleges, are generally anti-Semitic and hostile to the nation of Israel. It’s no accident that today’s leftists generally despise Christians as they slobber all over the backsides of Muslims, whose religious ideology is no less collectivist and statist.