Runboard.com
You're welcome.
The Pagan Porch - a forum for Pagan Homesteaders and their friends

This board is now closed and read only. No new membership can be gained. Thank you for your interest.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
Bergere Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 141
Reply | Quote
supreme court strikes down religious freedom.


Supreme Court Strikes Down Religious Freedom Restoration Act!
June 25th, 1997 c.e.


[color=Purple]I know this is old news.. but I have been searching online to find if anything has changed. So far I haven't found anything.
So what do you all think?[/color]


With a few strokes of the judicial pen, the Supreme Court today crossed out four years of tolerance toward minority religions. By declaring the RFRA unconstitutional, the country is tossed back to the year 1990 -the year of the Smith decision

A BRIEF DISCOURSE ON THE RFRA:

According to Barry Lynn of Americans United"

"In Employment Division v. Smith the justices gave government greater authority to restrict religious practices. Under the judicial standard used by the courts before Smith, government at any level could not restrict a person's religious freedom without first demonstrating a "compelling state interest." Government was also required to show that it has used the "least restrictive means" in passing or enforcing a law that might suppress religious practices. The Smith ruling, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, wiped that standard off the books and said that instead all "generally applicable" statutes would be constitutional, even if their effect was to eviscerate religious practices. Only laws that specifically targeted religious practices for suppression would be unconstitutional.

Scalia conceded that the new approach could place religious minorities at a "relative disadvantage" in comparison with majority faiths. But that, he said, is an "unavoidable consequence of democratic government."

To the layperson, the legal terms at the heart of the judicial debate over the reach of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause may sound abstract and confusing. The bottom line is that many religious liberty advocates believed that the Smith ruling gave government too much power over religion and handed the state a dangerous new weapon it could use to restrict religious practices."

[url][sign in to see URL]
5/22/2006, 2:03 pm Link to this post Send Email to Bergere   Send PM to Bergere
 
Saijen SilverWolf Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 10-2004
Location: Upper North East Tennessee
Posts: 3871
Reply | Quote
Re: supreme court strikes down religious freedom.


ya [sign in to see URL]'s too bad that the government can't take "Separation of church and state" literally.

Religion should be allowed the same following as Freedom Of Speech. It's appalling just how badly we've allowed the government to interfere with things they really have no business meddling in. Now, I could see if the "religion" was a destructive [sign in to see URL]'s a different [sign in to see URL] a lawful, peaceful religion should have just as much say/clout as the larger religions. That, to me is very discriminatory.

---
Blessed Be,
~*~ Saijen ~*~

~~*~~ .~~*~~
5/23/2006, 6:17 pm Link to this post Send Email to Saijen SilverWolf   Send PM to Saijen SilverWolf Yahoo
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)