The Rise of the Political Christian

[Chuck Naill]

You did.
I did.
Always there to point you the right way.
Never gets old, as you never stop.

I didn't until you prove it, Kaz. What get old is you refusing to respond with something of substance that back up your posts.

The government cannot establish a religion or prevent you saying something without restraint of being censored. This does not mean bad players like Falwell and the Southern Baptist can get by with making poor decisions or that we cannot call them out for doing so. Watching your wife having sex with another man is not freedom of religion no matter how much you want it to be.

I understand it galls you to be corrected, but if the "foo shits wear it".

First, you take the position that Alito is wrong/out of line asserting that religious liberty is worthy of special protection.
Second, when asked whether the exercise of religion is worthy of special protection, you slide sideways and acknowledge the government cannot establish a religion, avoiding the question, and ignoring the language of the First Amendment which addresses the question you were asked. In another attempt to deflect away from a constitutional discussion altogether you bring up pay-for-sex. Do your attempts at insulting people ever work?
Third, your post 18 you go off on Falwell, Southern Baptists, and return to your fixation on pay-for-sex. So far as I know, you are the only person who would link freedom of religion, pay-for-sex, with Justices Alito and Barrett rulings on First Amendment religious liberty opinions.

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Muslims and Jews have been attacked and killed recently.

Falwell and the SBC deserve the criticism and the justice inquiry into sexual abuse. Both are influential parties that have done great harm and receive lots of financial support. If a similar abuse were being performed by a Jewish or Muslim group, the same standards would apply.

[kazoolaw]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

[Chuck Naill]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

[Lloyd]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

Who defines morality?
If religions are false (can all religions be true simultaneously? ), mustn't they be lying?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

Who defines morality?
If religions are false (can all religions be true simultaneously? ), mustn't they be lying?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Would you consider abuse moral? Let’s not make this complicated.

[Lloyd]

Do I get to define morality for all?
Does psychological abuse count? Striking the fear of eternal damnation into the minds of youth in religious schools? Told your innate sexuality is evil?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.

[Lloyd]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.

Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"

[Lloyd]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"

My off the cuff definition - A (closed) set of behaviors that are subjectively defined, by some subset of society, as acceptable. All actions outside of this set are similarly defined as immoral. Different subsets of society may have differently defined behavioral sets.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

An impressive off-the-cuff.
Which leads me to answer, "no," you don't get to apply your construct of morality for everyone.

[kazoolaw]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

Staying with the Constitutional thread, I agree that not every religious practice would get the benefit of 1st Amenment protection. I can't think of an entire religion which would fall outside though.

[TSherbs]

An impressive off-the-cuff.
Which leads me to answer, "no," you don't get to apply your construct of morality for everyone.

Fortunately, neither of you do.

[kazoolaw]

Lloyd's use of "sub-set" infers it's not the product of one person's opinion.
Though inyour instance, it's not for lack of trying.

[TSherbs]

Some opinions are more equal than others.

[kazoolaw]

Good tthat your opinions bow down before others.

[TSherbs]

Good tthat your opinions bow down before others.

sometimes, sure

[TSherbs]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"

My off the cuff definition - A (closed) set of behaviors that are subjectively defined, by some subset of society, as acceptable. All actions outside of this set are similarly defined as immoral. Different subsets of society may have differently defined behavioral sets.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That's a pretty good definition, Lloyd. I would add only that these subsets change over time, also.

[Lloyd]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"

My off the cuff definition - A (closed) set of behaviors that are subjectively defined, by some subset of society, as acceptable. All actions outside of this set are similarly defined as immoral. Different subsets of society may have differently defined behavioral sets.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That's a pretty good definition, Lloyd. I would add only that these subsets change over time, also.

Some subsets stay fixed but change which behaviors fall into the moral/ immoral labeling, too.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

Staying with the Constitutional thread, I agree that not every religious practice would get the benefit of 1st Amenment protection. I can't think of an entire religion which would fall outside though.

The title is not about the Constitution. It is about the rise of the political Christian, Kaz. I've tried unsuccessfully to stay on topic.

It is not about other religions, but the Constitution does provide protection for all, not just one. Alito seems to be focused on one although I might have misunderstood his interest.