Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Free Exercise Clause
    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    Serious question:

    If a religious ritual involves human sacrifice, is it constitutionally protected under the First Amendment?

    If not, why not?





    [yes, this is step one of a two-step discussion....but step two doesn't follow until we get a straightforward, serious answer to step one]
    No, it's not legal.

    Free Exercise Clause

    The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

    “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

    In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1]
    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

    "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

    "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

    Comment


    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post

      [hint: I knew that....merely noticing how protecting US citizens from non-US citizens who want to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion on US soil was just declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Seems contradictory to me based on legal reasoning. Maybe the judges were being political instead, eh?]
      "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

      "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

      "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

      "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

      Comment


      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
        [hint: I knew that....merely noticing how protecting US citizens from non-US citizens who want to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion on US soil was just declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Seems contradictory to me based on legal reasoning. Maybe the judges were being political instead, eh?]
        Where do you come up with this bs? Which political party came down on the pro-side of human sacrifice? Was that part of the Greenback platform in the 1870s?

        The Court was applying common sense in interpreting the law, which is a big part of what they do. When one party lacks common sense, I guess you could accuse the judges of being political for instilling it, but really they're just doing their jobs.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
          [hint: I knew that....merely noticing how protecting US citizens from non-US citizens who want to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion on US soil was just declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Seems contradictory to me based on legal reasoning. Maybe the judges were being political instead, eh?
          Just asking questions, so you can advance a narrative. We know your schtik, Fish. You aren't fooling anyone.

          Comment


          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
            Just asking questions, so you can advance a narrative. We know your schtik, Fish. You aren't fooling anyone.
            I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement, especially in a time when >95% of the people here were officially Christians (Native peoples did not yet count). The remainder would have been Jewish with the very rare "other".
            "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

            "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

            "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

            Comment


            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
              I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement, especially in a time when >95% of the people here were officially Christians (Native peoples did not yet count). The remainder would have been Jewish with the very rare "other".
              It's a political statement when it affirms your belief that "America is a Christian nation!1!!1" or some such BS. Much the same way that "liberal judges" are "legislating from the bench" when they interpret the law in ways that conservatives don't like.

              Comment


              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                I suppose. I see the mentioning of the human sacrifice in the court's write up as taking religion to an archaic, absurd end. While the Founders made sure to not establish America as having a religion, most of the government functionaries wouldn't have necessarily been of the same mind, in that while they wouldn't actively push Christianity onto the masses, there would've been simple assumptions about how the masses related to some sort of deity.

                Are there any religions that have survived to this day that practice such a thing as human sacrifice in any first world nation? It's likely a moot point by now regardless.
                "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                Comment


                • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                  I suppose. I see the mentioning of the human sacrifice in the court's write up as taking religion to an archaic, absurd end. While the Founders made sure to not establish America as having a religion, most of the government functionaries wouldn't have necessarily been of the same mind, in that while they wouldn't actively push Christianity onto the masses, there would've been simple assumptions about how the masses related to some sort of deity.

                  Are there any religions that have survived to this day that practice such a thing as human sacrifice in any first world nation? It's likely a moot point by now regardless.
                  I know, it's why an avowed atheist will never be elected POTUS.

                  Islam sacrifices human lives all the time, don'tcha know? At least that's what InfoWars leader, and everyone's favorite drunk uncle, Alex Jones tells the sheeple every day.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                    I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement, especially in a time when >95% of the people here were officially Christians (Native peoples did not yet count). The remainder would have been Jewish with the very rare "other".
                    That's because you don't speak derp. Let me translate for you. He's saying Muslims engage in human sacrifices and want to do so here. So the judges are legislating from the bench by striking down the travel ban.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement,
                      That's not at all what I said.

                      and I am not a Trump apologist nor defender either so other people can spare themselves the spurious ad hominem attacks...

                      -- Radical Islamist terrorists practice human sacrifice in the name of their religion (i.e., they murder unbelievers, especially other Muslims who follow a different strand of Islam than they do).
                      -- The President says, "we need to keep people who kill other people in the name of their religion out of this country."
                      -- A judge says, "that is an unconstitutional violation of their First Amendment rights, because you are discriminating against people on the basis of their religion."
                      -- your citation of Reynolds vs US says that there are no First Amendment protections for religious rituals that involve human sacrifice.
                      -- The judge seems to be ignoring the clear precedent of Reynolds in his ruling.
                      -- If the judge is ignoring that precedent, then is he really engaged in legal reasoning?
                      -- or is he merely pretending to engage in legal reasoning so that he can make an anti-Trump political statement instead?


                      and how do non-resident non-citizens have any constitutional rights at all, anyway?
                      "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                      "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                      "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                      "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                      Comment


                      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by unofan View Post
                        That's because you don't speak derp. Let me translate for you. He's saying Muslims engage in human sacrifices and want to do so here. So the judges are legislating from the bench by striking down the travel ban.
                        Most impressive. I never would have made it there...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                          Islam sacrifices human lives all the time, don'tcha know?
                          Not all of Islam, merely one fringe, demented extreme version:

                          -- 2,996 people in lower Manhattan, 9/11/01
                          -- 164 in Mumbai, 11/26-11/29/08
                          -- 12 people in Paris, 1/7/10
                          -- 130 people in Paris, 11/13/15
                          -- 14 people in San Bernardino, 12/9/15
                          -- 49 people in Orlando, 6/12/16
                          -- 85 people in Nice, 7/14/16.


                          Sorry, I guess there must be something wrong with me. I don't find any of this particularly amusing.

                          Perhaps unofun can explain the humor to me?
                          Last edited by FreshFish; 03-17-2017, 04:38 PM.
                          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by unofan View Post
                            That's because you don't speak derp. Let me translate for you. He's saying Muslims engage in human sacrifices and want to do so here. So the judges are legislating from the bench by striking down the travel ban.
                            Many states allow human sacrifice right now. It's called the death penalty.

                            It's just that the first amendment took blasphemy off the list of capitol offenses.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                              Not all of Islam, merely one fringe, demented extreme version:

                              -- 2,996 people in lower Manhattan, 9/11/01
                              -- 164 in Mumbai, 11/26-11/29/08
                              -- 12 people in Paris, 1/7/10
                              -- 130 people in Paris, 11/13/15
                              -- 14 people in San Bernardino, 12/9/15
                              -- 49 people in Orlando, 6/12/16
                              -- 85 people in Nice, 7/14/16.


                              Sorry, I guess there must be something wrong with me. I don't find any of this particularly amusing.

                              Perhaps unofun can explain the humor to me?
                              Should we run a list of all the people Christians kill per year? Oh wait I bet they arent "Real Christians" right BotBoy?
                              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                              -aparch

                              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                              -INCH

                              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                              Comment


                              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                                Not all of Islam, merely one fringe, demented extreme version:

                                -- 2,996 people in lower Manhattan, 9/11/01
                                -- 164 in Mumbai, 11/26-11/29/08
                                -- 12 people in Paris, 1/7/10
                                -- 130 people in Paris, 11/13/15
                                -- 14 people in San Bernardino, 12/9/15
                                -- 49 people in Orlando, 6/12/16
                                -- 85 people in Nice, 7/14/16.


                                Sorry, I guess there must be something wrong with me. I don't find any of this particularly amusing.

                                Perhaps unofun can explain the humor to me?
                                It would be interesting to compare that number to the number of people the US military has killed since 2001. Or does that not count?

                                I'm sure we've killed quite a few innocent people along with the fighters.

                                Given the nature of why people become terrorists- that matters A LOT.
                                Last edited by alfablue; 03-18-2017, 09:14 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X