Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

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

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 5, 2012, 11:25 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Can someone explain to me what is going on with the current debate?
The constitution is not there to protect RELIGIONS.
It is there to protect PEOPLE.


If the UYTKU religion believes that killing 80 year olds is a religious right?
If the YTCVUTYF religion believes that TYFY are not a race of humans and must not be treated in hospitals for humans?
If the QUDYC religion requires that all plumbing pipes be made of
pure lead?
If the DEUD religion requires that all surgery be done with unsterilized instruments?


The constitution is not there to protect RELIGIONS.
It is there to protect PEOPLE.

32 Comments

32 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Great post. It's unfortunate that there are those who are spending an inordinate amount of time lying about what this means.

[-] 2 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

The 1st amendment isn't about protecting religions, it's about protecting an individuals right to practice whatever religion they feel is right and true.

And in cases where the practice of religion defies basic laws then there are laws made against that specific practice (i.e. Mormons and Polygamy).

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Actually, religious practices are banned when they violate people's rights, not laws. If all of the members in an arrangement are satisfied with it, it does not violate anyone's rights and thus falls under religious freedom.

Not giving someone something for free does not violate their rights.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Excellent point - I can't believe I didn't get this first

[-] 2 points by Truth4Life (43) 2 years ago

''we need a real Separation of church & state....''

Some loonies of the far right believe there is no such thing and that it was never intended to be so by our Founding Fathers. These unknowing delusionals need to read Madison's demand for separation of church and state which was written TWO years before the Constitution was enacted:

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

"Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance was written in opposition to a bill, introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. The assessment bill was tabled, and in its place the legislature enacted Jefferson's Bill for Religious Liberty." ( Source: Hensel, Jaye B., Ed., Church, State, and Politics Washington D.C. Final Report of the 1981 Chief Justice Earl Warren Conference on Adovcacy in the United States)

Thomas Jefferson had drafted The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1779 three years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence. The act was not passed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia until 1786. Jefferson was by then in Paris as the U.S. Ambassador to France. The Act was resisted by a group headed by Patrick Henry who sought to pass a bill that would have assessed all the citizens of Virginia to support a plural establishment. James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was, and remains, a powerful argument AGAINST STATE SUPPORTED RELIGION. It was written in 1785, just a few months before the General Assembly passed Jefferson's religious freedom bill.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Rights are framed in the context of whether or not they affect people who don't consent to an act. If the 80 year old agrees to be killed, it is no one else's right to stop them. If they do not agree, their rights are being violated. If the occupant of the house knows the plumbing pipes are made of lead, it is their right. You get the picture...

If everything is decided based on a majority vote, then no one has any rights. Interracial marriage may still be illegal if that were the case. People need to grow brains and come up with logical and reasonable definitions for rights.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"rights" - in the context of this thread - are constitutional
religion has NO rights
people do
If the catholic church wants to burn Jews today, like they did in 1492,
who has the "rights" ? The church or the victims ?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I already answered that question, if you are capable of following logic to conclusion. The victims, of course, have absolute rights in this instance, because it is their bodies involved. Just as people have the right to protest, they do not have the right to protest in someone else's yard without their permission.

Do you get it now?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

how bout the Separation of church & state....

how bout a spin on it... the existing extreme right in our gov, who are blocking every attempt to get the middle class economy improving... with no answers or argument... just simply "no"..

they justify lying, they justify anything to promote their cause...

it has become a religion ... they simply believe in their cause so much.. they can't see the effects....

we need a real Separation of church & state....

[+] -5 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Fuck off loser. Your daddy Obama is a liar.. Obama can go eat shit.

[-] 2 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

That's uncalled for. I disagree with BradB as well. But what you just said is uncalled for.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

When US laws are for religion, they apply to ALL religions. The use of religion to govern works only for the governors.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by childseyes (85) 2 years ago

I'm really worried about some very special people, my children. I love them soooooo much, and it purely looks like this government has discarded our constitution. Polluters are being protected by the NAFTA and GATT treaties that appear as PURE treason.

People don't realize that the California governmor was sued by a Canadian company that was doing business with US companies and the Governor banned a fuel additive that was being made in Canada. That Governor was NOT allowed to defend himself with US law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BECAUSE, the foriegn and domestic companies were doing business under NAFTA. More recently, the Gulf oil BP leak has the EPA "asking" BP to not spray core exit and, they do it anyway!!!!!!! because they are doing business with US companies under GATT.

Protect our children by standing for the US constitution.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I dont appreciate the litter - start your own thread

[-] 0 points by childseyes (85) 2 years ago

I doubt you are sincere dad.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 2 years ago

Really, what is the matter with dad?

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 2 years ago

I guess he thinks the constitution only applies to his issues. Dunno, weird.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

please read the 1st amendment regarding religion."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," It does say anything about the "separation of church and state". HHS is now trashing the first amendment, the catholic church in particular.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"HHS is now trashing the first amendment, the catholic church in particular."
Can you be specific - what "trashing" ?

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

requiring ( forcing)catholic institutions to go against their beliefs by prohibiting them follwing them.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

So if a catholic hospital - that receives public money - believes in using lead pipes - and believes modern machines such as x-rays are an abomination - should the government continue to give them money?
TODAY - if the catholic church was totally privately funded - and did not get MY money to promulgate their beliefs, this would not be an issue.


Again - the constitution protects PEOPLE not CHURCHES

[+] -4 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

this is not about protecting the churches. it's about HHS telling and forcing the christian facilities to provide things that are against the churches beliefs. that's a trashing of the 1st amendment, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING the the free exercise thereof".

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That is a deliberate distortion. HHS is requiring that all INSURANCE plans include contraception with no co-pays. It is not infringing upon Catholics. NO catholics are REQUIRED to use contraceptives. But, if the Church accepts government money, and it employs non-Catholics, it may not discriminate against them in the health coverage it provides. And, by the way, the Administration granted a waiver to religious institutions for the requirement to hire people outside of their religion.

So there is NO prohibition at all upon the free exercise of religion by this administration. Keep up the Glenn Beck lies.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the waiver is for ONE year. HHS is destroying the 1st amendment .

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It is doing no such thing. No Catholic is required to take birth control against their will. And if the Church CHOOSES to hire non-Catholics, the 14th amendment also applies to its employees.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"free exercise"
If a hospital gets NO FEDERAL money - they can do what they want.
A private club - that gets NO FEDERAL money - can be segregated or do whatever legal actions they want.
You know the truth as well as I do-
this is a matter of a religion taking taxpayer money having to obey the same laws as anyone else taking taxpayer money. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

how pathetic, you use quotes from 5th rate movies.

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

You make too much sense for dipshit bensdad to comprehend. He cannnot follow coherent discussion.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

thank you .

[-] -3 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

No problem. These marxists have pissed me off today, so I am in a low mood.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

It's easy to piss off someone whose reality is built ion an unfounded belief system.

Have a nice day.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

don't let them get to you. you are informed, you're better than they are.