Religious Liberty Doctrine Is Grossly Unbalanced

There are a couple of disturbing truths about religious liberty doctrine in this country that must be confronted. First, unlike free exercise religious liberty, which is more protected in modern society than it was at the Founding (good!), modern jurists have significantly narrowed First Amendment anti-establishment liberty by stripping from it all original meaning and intent. Second, those who embrace and now further the demise of original anti-establishment liberty include prominent “originalists.”

...despite Madison’s stated intent behind what is now the only applicable anti-establishment liberty standard, many originalists embrace a conjured modern doctrine where denials of civil support to religion amount to impermissible discrimination to free exercise. In essence, the modern doctrine of religious liberty has pitted original free exercise and anti-establishment liberty against one another and the resulting harm to free conscience is profound.

Click to expand...

Because government funding is allowed, even encouraged, many religious organizations are now dependent on civil funding for their operating budgets. A recent study found that within the largest religious service groups “government monies dwarf all other sources of funding.” I can imagine nothing more anathema to Madison’s intent for free conscience religious liberty as articulated in Memorial than this result. But another harm exists, far more dangerous than doctrinal inconsistency, to such pervasive government funding of church operations.

As churches now operationally dependent on civil support mechanisms, their functions logically become seen as extensions of politics and government action. The result is shifts in the political order are portrayed as violent threats to religion.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/modern-religious-liberty-doctrine-is-grossly-unbalanced/

Click to expand...

calamity said:

When it comes to interfering with separation of church and state, the church has a plan. And, it's not a good one for anyone not in love with Sky Daddy Doctrine.

Read.



In other words, Bret Kavenaugh bad; Ruth Ginsberg good. That is if you are not a fan of the American Taliban. Furthermore:

Click to expand...

Crovax said:

From your first article it cited a study that it didnt link with a supposed quote from the study

View attachment 67249320

And despite it being a "law" article, It didnt even mention the case law at hand

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Which setup the "lemon test" for govt funding relating to religious organizations.

Which states:
The statute must have a secular legislative purpose
The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

Click to expand...

calamity said:

What does 1971 have to do with the following: Kavenaugh, Thomas & Alito?

Click to expand...

Crovax said:

The year? nothing. the case Lemon v. Kurtzman? quite a bit in the context of the article

Click to expand...

calamity said:

My comments in the op have nothing to do with Lemon. Look at the bigger picture, if you can.

Click to expand...

Crovax said:

Whats the bigger picture, Govt funding relating to religious organizations or your obsession with Trump and Satanists?

Click to expand...

calamity said:

When it comes to interfering with separation of church and state, the church has a plan. And, it's not a good one for anyone not in love with Sky Daddy Doctrine.

Read.



In other words, Bret Kavenaugh bad; Ruth Ginsberg good. That is if you are not a fan of the American Taliban. Furthermore:



Translation: The bold basically means, if you are against Trump, you are with Satan.

Yes. That is happening.

'They Are Taking Over': How Satanists Are Working to Stop Trump

Click to expand...

calamity said:

When it comes to interfering with separation of church and state, the church has a plan. And, it's not a good one for anyone not in love with Sky Daddy Doctrine.

Read.



In other words, Bret Kavenaugh bad; Ruth Ginsberg good. That is if you are not a fan of the American Taliban. Furthermore:



Translation: The bold basically means, if you are against Trump, you are with Satan.

Yes. That is happening.

'They Are Taking Over': How Satanists Are Working to Stop Trump

Click to expand...

RaleBulgarian said:

Never heard of The Satanic Temple before, but believe much the same as them and don’t see any problem with their philosophy.

THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS.

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend.

To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and remediate any harm that may have been caused.

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought.

The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
https://thesatanictemple.com

Click to expand...

LowDown said:

The Satanists should just apply for a government grant.:2razz:

Seriously, though, I view increased civil support of religious organizations as threatening to ruin religion in the same way that government funding of science has ruined science.

Click to expand...