Freedom of religion in consitution

[jinpark]

I have a question about Freedom of Religion found in the the first amendment. I cannot find anything that supports this idea biblically in the sense that the Lord would be ok with it. The first commandment makes it clear that we do not have the permission to worship as we please. The US constitution says that its just fine to worship any deity you please. I can't honestly support a document that declares this.

So what I'm wondering is if there any concerted effort to remove this from the constitution?

Jin

[Cow Poke]

Are you sure you understand the First Amendment? I don't think it says what you're implying. How bout posting the First Amendment and address the specific part(s) you're questioning.

As a matter of fact, let's do this.... here's the text....

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

© source where applicable

Your question?

[jinpark]

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

Everyone understands this law as guaranteeing that the government will not punish you or find you guilty of wrongdoing for freely exercising your religious beliefs as long as it doesn't trample on someone elses freedoms. I believe all case law supports this. I thought I was clear in my question. But maybe I'll ask a different one. Since the Lord specifically prohibits the worshiping of gods before him in the first commandment, like he prohibits murder in the sixth, do you think the Lord would find a human law laudable that says worshiping other gods is permitted and not worthy of punishment? There can be no doubt, that of all the things the Lord requires of us, that following the first commandment is the most important. If we reject the first commandment all bets are off. You can even murder and ask for forgiveness. But if you are asking forgiveness from a different god then it will fall on deaf ears.

[phaedrus]

I, too, would like to know where you're going with this. It seems to me that if you want the constitution to expressly forbid freedom of religion, then logically there would be laws that would follow from that forbidding any practice of religion other than the state supported one. Are you sure you want to live in a country where the state dictates what religion you must follow?

[Cow Poke]

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

Everyone understands this law as guaranteeing that the government will not punish you or find you guilty of wrongdoing for freely exercising your religious beliefs as long as it doesn't trample on someone elses freedoms. I believe all case law supports this. I thought I was clear in my question. But maybe I'll ask a different one. Since the Lord specifically prohibits the worshiping of gods before him in the first commandment, like he prohibits murder in the sixth, do you think the Lord would find a human law laudable that says worshiping other gods is permitted and not worthy of punishment? There can be no doubt, that of all the things the Lord requires of us, that following the first commandment is the most important. If we reject the first commandment all bets are off. You can even murder and ask for forgiveness. But if you are asking forgiveness from a different god then it will fall on deaf ears.

The First Amendment has been skewed by interpretation....
the POINT was that Congress would neither "establish" nor "prohibit"... this has been blown into the "separation of Church and State", but that's arguable.

The Bible is still the Bible, and God's laws are still God's laws. I really don't get where you're going.

From your OP, you said...

The US constitution says that its just fine to worship any deity you please. I can't honestly support a document that declares this.

I don't think it says that, and you have failed to prove this to be true. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that I still don't think the US Constitution is saying what you claim it says.

[phaedrus]

It seems to me the US constitution allows you to follow your first commandment. It also allows other people to follow different religions. As regards religious practice it is passive. Would you like it to be more active in its support of Christianity?

[Kelp]

The thing is, this is not a 100% Christian population. Our laws have to work with people of other religions living here too. The only alternative is to force conversion, and we know from history as well as the Bible that this does not work.

I also think you're confusing earthly laws with the law of God. It's good for the laws of a Christian nation to imitate God's laws as much as they can because God's laws are just and good, but ultimately they can't be the same because we don't live in an all Christian society.

[jinpark]

It seems to me the US constitution allows you to follow your first commandment. It also allows other people to follow different religions. As regards religious practice it is passive. Would you like it to be more active in its support of Christianity?

Does the first commandment guarantee you the freedom to worship as you chose without punishment? This is the point. Just like freedoms in the constitution take precedent over state laws when they conflict, Gods law should take precedent over for constitutional law when they conflict. Answer the question, would God be ok with a law that expressely gives you the freedom to worship as you please. Inherit with that freedom is the idea that its not worthy of punishment like treason or murder.

[Cow Poke]

Does the first commandment guarantee you the freedom to worship as you chose without punishment? This is the point.

You DO realize that the first commandment has been around for thousands of years, and the constitution has been around for a few hundred, right? And people have been serving God LONG before the US Constitution was written.

Just like freedoms in the constitution take precedent over state laws when they conflict, Gods law should take precedent over for constitutional law when they conflict.

If you are a follower of Christ, you don't sit around waiting for laws to be written to allow you to follow Him.

Answer the question, would God be ok with a law that expressely gives you the freedom to worship as you please. Inherit with that freedom is the idea that its not worthy of punishment like treason or murder.

You have failed to demonstrate that the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, was written "expressly to give you the freedom to worship as you please". Do you follow Jesus because Jesus said "follow me"? Or are waiting for some law that restricts worship of all other religions except Christianity.

I don't think you're making a whole lot of sense.

[jinpark]

The First Amendment has been skewed by interpretation....
the POINT was that Congress would neither "establish" nor "prohibit"... this has been blown into the "separation of Church and State", but that's arguable.

The Bible is still the Bible, and God's laws are still God's laws. I really don't get where you're going.

From your OP, you said...

I don't think it says that, and you have failed to prove this to be true. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that I still don't think the US Constitution is saying what you claim it says.

What does free exercise mean? Findlaw is an excellent resource .. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt01/05.html#1 Can you find something contrary to the plain meaning of free exercise of? Ignore the establishment clause as I am only focusing on the free exercise clause. Are you claiming that the Constitution doesn't not guarantee that you can worship as you wish? If so I would think that is a far greater claim than my plain reading of the amendment as I've never heard it said before. Do you have any case to to support that one of the reasons the amendment was not established to protect religious freedom? Would the government constitutionally be able to establish that being a Wiccan is a punishable offense and those found practicing it would be punished?

[Cow Poke]

What does free exercise mean? Findlaw is an excellent resource .. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt01/05.html#1 Can you find something contrary to the plain meaning of free exercise of? Ignore the establishment clause as I am only focusing on the free exercise clause. Are you claiming that the Constitution doesn't not guarantee that you can worship as you wish?

It's not a "free exercise" clause -- it's a "prohibition" clause... Congress cannot PROHIBIT the free exercise...

If so I would think that is a far greater claim than my plain reading of the amendment as I've never heard it said before. Do you have any case to to support that one of the reasons the amendment was not established to protect religious freedom? Would the government constitutionally be able to establish that being a Wiccan is a punishable offense and those found practicing it would be punished?

You can't pick and choose... Congress is not supposed to ESTABLISH or PROHIBIT. It's that simple. They're supposed to stay out of religion -- no established STATE religion (Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association). That doesn't mean it WORKS that way, but you have to read the First Amendment in it's entirety. Or at LEAST all of the part dealing with religion.

[jinpark]

You DO realize that the first commandment has been around for thousands of years, and the constitution has been around for a few hundred, right? And people have been serving God LONG before the US Constitution was written.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

If you are a follower of Christ, you don't sit around waiting for laws to be written to allow you to follow Him.

If you are a follower of Christ you wouldn't claim I said things I did not. How is saying that a human's law conflicts with God's law saying that I'm waiting around waiting for laws to be written to allow me to follow him? I'm already justified by God's law. What about saying that US laws allowing abortions currently conflict with Gods laws? Am I allowed to say this? If so, why am I not allowed to say the former?

You have failed to demonstrate that the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, was written "expressly to give you the freedom to worship as you please".

Are you stating the constitution does not guarantee the freedom to be Wiccan and establish that the government cannot punish you for being so? I'm sure if this it true, you can give me at least one case where this has been established.

[Cow Poke]

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Then maybe you should clarify what you said.

If you are a follower of Christ you wouldn't claim I said things I did not.

There's no reason to get snitty and play this "if you are a follower of Christ" nonsense. I am.

How is saying that a human's law conflicts with God's law saying that I'm waiting around waiting for laws to be written to allow me to follow him? What about saying that US laws allowing abortions currently conflict with Gods laws? Am I allowed to say this? If so, why am I not allowed to say the former?

You can say anything you want! That's part of the "freedom of speech". Should we ONLY allow freedom of speech to people who claim to be "followers of Christ?"

Are you stating the constitution does not guarantee the freedom to be Wiccan and establish that the government cannot punish you for being so? I'm sure if this it true, you can give me at least one case where this has been established.

I'm saying that I'm a whole lot more concerned about what the Bible says, and it is my guide. If you're not happy with the US Constitution, how would you survive in Cold War Russia?

[jinpark]

It's not a "free exercise" clause -- it's a "prohibition" clause... Congress cannot PROHIBIT the free exercise...

It specifically says congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. Its been established by case law that this means the Wiccan religion as well.

Thus congress cannot prohibit or punish me for free exercise of my religion whether it be Wiccan religion or another religion. I don't understand how you think this is different from what I've been saying.

[Cow Poke]

It specifically says congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. Its been established by case law that this means the Wiccan religion as well.

Yes, the "prohibition" clause. and is that your beef? Wicca? So you want to dump the Constitution?

Thus congress cannot prohibit or punish me for free exercise of my religion whether it be Wiccan religion or another religion. I don't understand how you think this is different from what I've been saying.

So, what did the Wiccan do that the US government needs to punish him? Isn't he in enough trouble with God?