Why We Have Religious Freedom Acts

If one relied solely on the mainstream media one would think Religious Freedom laws like Indiana’s and Arkansas’ are aimed only at discriminating against gay people. But theses laws have been used in a number of recent cases to slap back an over-reaching government when it infringes on an individuals’ right to practice his or hers religion.

From Indian tribe members wanting eagle feathers, Sikhs with ceremonial knives to Santeria Priest wanting to sacrifice a goat, Religious Freedom allows observant individuals to at least have a day in court to challenge an often arbitrary government.


Given the 1st Amendment, we shouldn’t even need these laws on the books. But there is always someone in government thinking they know better, disregarding the beliefs of others.

16 Comments on Why We Have Religious Freedom Acts

  1. The Constitution guarantees my freedom to practice my religion.

    It does NOT guarantee the practice of sexual perversion.

    The fact that this is even a debate is proof that NO ONE in public life any longer accepts the Constitution as the foundational law of the United States of America.

  2. Some brain-dead disingenuous ditz on Fox last night proclaimed that, as far as she was concerned, “civil rights” trumped “religious rights.”

    Well, that’s not what the 1st Amendment to the Constitution expresses, or implies, except in as much as Freedom of speech, or of the press, or peaceable assembly, and to petition the Government are “civil rights.”

  3. Tim, I am mostly in agreement with what I think you’re getting at, but you wrote something that needs a bit of rewording.

    The Constitution does not guarantee your freedom to practice your religion. It prohibits congress from differentiating between “approved” and “non-approved” religions by means of officially establishing some churches/religions but not others.

    And the sexual perversion question isn’t entirely clear, either. Simple example: Some states allow marriage between first cousins while other states have found that to be unacceptable and have classified it as incest, which is itself regarded as a sexual perversion.

  4. Al,
    I’ll buy the first part, to a degree (… no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …) but I can’t find the phrase “sexual perversion” in my copy of the Constitution, or the attached amendments, and, if the Civil War was justified, then if the Constitution is silent on an issue, it is forbidden (the case against secession).

  5. Tim, I see you’re not a strict constructionist. If you were, you would see that the absence of any mention of sexual perversion in the Constitution means that the govt is not allowed to act in that area.

  6. Al, that is not my view, that was how the North justified conquering the South.

    My view is that the Constitution constrains the gov’t; not the governed.

  7. Hey Uncle Al and Tim, where does the 10th amendment come into play when it comes to perverted sex acts?

    Tim has raised an interesting question, is a sexual perversion a protected civil right? We certainly draw the line at pedophilia (for now) yet tolerate homosexuality and even pass non-discrimination laws based on sexual preference. I suppose at the state level that is the 10th Amendment at work.

  8. Dr. Tar, my take on the question is that (a) constitutionally there’s no permission for the central govt to act on matters involving perversion, (b) the 10th A comes into play allowing states to act if their individual constitutions allow and their legislators pass a statute then signed by the gov., and (c) the question of whether acts regarded as perverted by some but normal by others are to be allowed by nature of being a civil right is one that is not at all clear, and extremely unlikely to be clarified by the Supremes, but (d) if they do, the 14th A may come into the picture.

    (edited after orig. post)

  9. Tim, I am not understanding your point of view, obviously. We seem to agree on the Const. being a govt-limiter, but then you said

    if the Civil War was justified, then if the Constitution is silent on an issue, it is forbidden (the case against secession).

    The Const. does not allow the central govt to prohibit states from seceding. It is indeed silent on the issue. Do you maintain that this silence means it is OK for the central govt to go ahead and ban secession? If so, it should also be OK to outlaw chocolate swirl ice cream and sex with watermelons.

    (edit: gotta run errands – will ck back in about 1 hr)

  10. Incredible. Almost $300,000 raised. Way to protest the liberal fascists. More effective than shitting on a police car. Hope that pizza business owner uses that Gofundme money to sue that reporter and ABC for libel and loss of business.

  11. Mike: $317,000 at 9.30. And I don’t know what the fuck Uncle Al, Tim, and Dr. Tar are jabbering about.

    Ever been to a wedding with Horse Dovers,Pizza, and Chianti?

    Me neither. . Homos pushing the envelope. Just like muslims and negors.

  12. Al,
    The NORTH justified the conquest of the SOUTH by claiming that IF the Constitution IS SILENT on an issue, it IS NOT PERMITTED.

    This was Lincoln’s view – not MINE.

    HE WON. Secession LOST. West Virginia is STILL a state, in direct contravention to the Constitution. The NORTH claimed that W. Virginia could be separated from Virginia, because Virginia was no longer a state, having seceded, even though secession was un-Constitutional.

    This translates to “Might makes Right.”

    Or, as the Athenians put it: “The Strong do what they will; the Weak suffer what they must.”


Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!