So ,so called religious freedom is absolute ? How about polygamy?. Human and animal sacrifice.. corporal punishment for women including stoning ? If you say yes to those then your argument about Sharia stands.

Strange case of relativism equating the Talmud with Sharia if you ask me.

No, I just don't like the way you bait us after it's already been satisfactorily answered.

You still mistake what most Christians mean by this being a Christian nation, as in it's a nation of mostly Christians that recognizes our history and believes - rightly so - that our country was laws and constitution are based on biblical principles. So what, we recognize your rights as well.

I've said it here many times, without your freedom I don't have my freedom, so I'll defend your right to not believe as I do. Sharia, not so much. I'm content living under our system of government, Sharia is not, and to me that has everything to do with our constitution.

Hello again, tom:

I think it's absolute. But, you're mixing up religious freedom with what WE have decreed, is criminal activity. According to OUR law, one can't plead religious freedom when assaulting another person, or animal for that matter. I'm fine with that.

I DO think that polygamy falls under religious freedom. I'm not talking about marrying CHILDREN, or DOGS. I'm talking about two (or three or four) ADULTS making a decision how to live their life based upon religious principles. Yes, I think smoking pot COULD be the basis for a religion.

The Talmud is religious law. Isn't that what Sharia is? You want me to judge, like you do, based upon my personal prejudices... But, I LOVE this country so much, that I overcome my initial personal reactions, and look to the CONSTITUTION for the PROPER, and AMERICAN response. I would think that the Constitution loving Tea Party would view it the same... No, huh?

excon

Sharia law says that what we say is criminal activity is permissible . Pot smoking is also criminal activity under our laws but since it complies in this case with your belief you would make that a religious exception . Polygamy is also criminal behavior but you think due to religious practice that should be a right too .

So where do you differentiate the criminal behaviors permissible under absolute religious freedoms when some you justify and others you don't ?

If religious freedoms were absolute I would agree with you .But ,just like the exceptions famously outlined concerning free speech ,we know that these freedoms have restrictions .

Hello again, tom:

I speak from my Constitutional perspective... I believe the laws against pot are Unconstitutional. I believe the laws against polygamy are Unconstitutional. The fact that society has labeled THESE activities criminal, does NOT make it so. I CAN read. (You ALSO have a problem with the Commerce Clause - but NOT because it prohibits you from buying something, but because it's going to REQUIRE you to buy something - and you don't LIKE that)

I DON'T make those distinctions when it comes to ASSAULTIVE behavior. I guess until you're able to do this yourself, or at least see that I'm doing it, you're going to think I approve of man/dog marriage.

excon

How can it be absolute if you want to prohibit assaultive behavior? Both the Torah (and thus the Christians' Bible) and Qaran endorse animal sacrifice and stoning.

You're letting your own double standard show.

Hello again, Cats:

Freedom of religion IS absolute. That has nothing to do with a book - ANY book. It also has nothing to do with beating people up.

I don't quite know what you're saying, Cats. I'm certainly not holding one religious book over another. And, I'm not holding ANY religious book over the Constitution.

excon

PS> (edited) I just read it again. If you think that freedom of religion ISN'T absolute because we won't let people commit human sacrifice, I'll agree with you. But, short of committing a CRIME, the ability of one to practice one's religion in this great county or ours, IS absolute, In my opinion.

Or, maybe because it's limited on the one hand, it CAN'T BE absolute on the other... I don't know. This is giving me a headache.

Ex I think you have just proven your constitutional freedoms are not as absolute as you think and that might mean that if one constitutional freedom is limited, then so are others such as the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech. No wonder you have a headache, but then when you speak in absolutes you get onto the horns of a dilemma

Yes ,the famous example of free speech restrictions is yelling fire in a theater ,libel etc. Registration requirements of guns falls in the category of a second amendment restriction... The government has a right to know if you have guns.

Here are the relevant SCOTUS decisions . 'Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith' SCOTUS decided that states could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. They determined states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs if they choose to do so , but they are not required to do so.Congress passed the ' Religious Freedom Restoration Act' to get around this ruling .But SCOTUS in 'City of Boerne v. Flores 'ruled the law unconstitutional .
So some aspects of Sharia law ,or any other religious ritual ,or religious law can be constitutionally restricted by the nation,individual states ,or locality without necessarily restricting the' free exercise clause'.

In my opinion, the issue isn't the building of a mosque, it is the location. I feel it would only serve to be provocational.

It has nothing to do with freedom of religion. There are many mosques throughout the country.

There are questions regarding the history/involvement of some of the backers of the project however that should be addressed.

Freedom of religion is not absolute... the distinction is often made between beliefs and actual practices.

Hello D:

I'm glad you joined the discussion. It gets old arguing with the same people.

But, my argument doesn't change... Using your logic, because there are many guns around, YOUR gun rights should be curtailed... Or, because we gave the Miranda warnings to MOST people, YOUR rights should be violated...

It absolutely DOES have to do with freedom of religion. These American citizens want to put their mosque THERE. That is their RIGHT, just like it's YOUR right to put your church where ever YOU want to. Is it offensive?? Yes. Do they have the RIGHT to put it there? YES! Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. Offensive? Yes. To me, however, it's MORE offensive to see the Constitution torn asunder.

excon

And if it is used as part of the plan to destroy this country and spit in the face of Americans that's OK too? The FF's had these types of scenes in mind when they wrote the rules? What matters is what the citizens think right now. The bad guys like our simple answers to very complex issues--they have to have something to laugh about in the caves-it gets boring.
We have to keep up and the constitution has to keep up. Words are just words and can be read many ways. That's what the lawyers like about'em.

Not really the same thing. Now if you said there was an absolute right to build a Temple for the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor I would say wrong.
Certainly the township would be in their right for various reasons to deny it.

Now for the record ,because some people may not be aware of the case , the Skokie, Ill. March did not actually happen in Skokie .The Nazis wanted to march there because there were a lot of holocost survivors in the town . SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Nazis.

But public pressure effectively applied ; the Nazi instead held 3 marches (poorly attended ) in the Chicago area and did not march in the area where it would've been most offensive.

Didn't the Constitution refer to some citizens as three-fifths of a real person? Did the FF's look into the crystal ball on that one?
They saw as far as they could see and did a good job. If they came back to the present day and wrote the Constitution again, they would soon realize that some expansion and clarification was needed. And if they could do a good job, we could throw out all that Sublime Court precedence stuff. Any citizen could read it and understand it but in a small number of years, it would have to be done all over again, just like any other sets of code, regulations, specifications that are used by Americans. I guess the House and Senate would have to approve it, and the citizens would vote but we have elections every two years anyhow. With regard to religion they might add: This right shall not apply to any group that subscribes to the overthrow of this U.S. Government and its people: nor to groups who have caused the muliple deaths of U.S. citizens and whose members are currently at War with the United States of America. I think they would write that, Congress would approve it, and the Citizens would approve it. Maybe it would be in the form of a definition of qualified religion. Hiding behind nebulous 234 year old simple statements to govern a modern, highly technical society, with it's future very much at stake, is silly.

Hello again, smear:

Couple things.

The Bill or Rights are written in plain language so that ANYBODY can understand what it says. You also point out the Amendment process. If you want to change it accordingly, I'm cool with it. But, CHANGE it - don't VIOLATE it.

excon

Smear ,the Constitution has gone through revision 27 times.

The founders did see a need for revisions and wrote the process into the Constitution. They also foresaw a day when a number of revisions would be required ,and wrote into the Constitution the process for a Constitutional Convention.

I for one do not see a need to amend the 1st Amendment here as the denial of converting the building into a Mosque is constitutional . Free exercise does not guarantee an on site edifice .

I stand by my contention that the local municipality has the right to deny it.

And the point is mute because a Mosque will be built in the historic Burlington Coat Factory building .

Good points of course. The process has to change. It stinks and it is of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers at present. What if a mosque wanted to erect an ICBM at their site, pointed at the new WTC's future buildings, just waiting until they get them finished so they could blow them and 10,000,000 people off the map. Does Freedom of Religion give that one a green light? I know that's ludicrous but pretend for the sake of argument that it is not.

Hello again, smear:

We have laws that prevent people from ASSAULTING other people. Freedom of religion doesn't shield anyone from those laws.

Like tom, I'm pretty happy with the First Amendment. What's not to like?

"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."

excon

The 27th amendment took 40 years from introduction to passage. The issues we deal with today can't wait that long. Pick up the pace America. There is big trouble brewing and it won't wait for nine old men and women to play political football, especially when our Quarterback isn't sure which team he is on. Devout muslims to Homeland Security leadership (check it out), NASA administrator on muslim esteem tours (check it out too), our 57 states (you decide). I have "refudiated" some of my friends sending me scurrilous Obama attacks that were patently false. These hold water.

No they don't. Check it out.