If you could point to a law that has no secular justification at all and is merely a codification of a religious doctrine that forces you to practice it, then yes.
However, courts are pretty lenient about it. Even the Warren Court upheld Sunday closing laws which is something that even I would take a second look at, because as you probably agree, they are clearly religious laws and the secular justification for them are all ad hoc pretexts.
I believe (not entirely yet, but almost there) that they are unconstitutional because they harm adherents of faiths that practice the Sabbath on Saturday. They must conform to their own views by taking off Saturday and then the law by taking off Sunday. By doing that, they are at a one day work disadvantage to the rest of the people and impinge upon their free exercise of religion.
This is a fine example and forced Sunday closings was one of things that cemented my view that religious dictates (or laws that derive from the religious precepts of others) have no place in a free society. In Ontario, not too long ago, even devout Jewish merchants were forced to shutter their shops on Sundays.
I found it inconceivable that a person’s freedom to work (or play*) at the time of their choosing should somehow be contingent on the religious beliefs of others. You may disagree but I think the same logic applies for LGBT rights, physician assisted suicide, and of course a woman’s right to have minor surgical procedures on her reproductive organs. Those who would limit (or forbid) such rights because of their religious beliefs, or their life philosophy, or simply their opinion, are forcing their world view - their religion - on others.
*many decades ago my father had his baseball confiscated by the police for playing pick-up ball on the Lord’s day of rest.
But every law imposes an obstacle against what someone else would really like to do. Someone’s opinion, or world view will have to have an impact on proposing those laws unless we just make up random laws. And if people are religious, their religion will impact that world view. It is impossible to separate the two. All the laws you mentioned have secular purposes as well.
Are laws against murder and thievery wrong because in addition to their secular purpose, some people find that they should be prohibited because of their inclusion in the Ten Commandments?
Further, note that I don’t object to Sunday closing laws because they are an establishment of religion, but that they prevent the free exercise of it. Nobody’s religious exercise is prevented by their prohibition.
If you want to be silly and say that your personal religious views require you to have an abortion, then we must invalidate every law because someone could claim a religious requirement to do it.
Damn, missed the edit window. I was going to erase that because I read the rest of the thread.
Anyway, here’s my question: if someone decides to honor the Muslim faith by putting a crescent next to the crucifix, is someone else allowed to squawk? Can they take their case to the Supreme Court? Are Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch going to decide that the Framers never intended the 1st to cover Islam as well as Christianity?
Those who were never black cannot understand the pervasiveness of racism. Those who were never female cannot understand the pervasiveness of sexism. Those who were never gay cannot understand the pervasiveness of homophobia. Those who were never not Christian cannot understand the pervasiveness of religion. White male straight Christians truly believe that they are the default norm in the U.S. and that the world is built for them and that the laws are made for them. It is a national tragedy. It must end. Fortunately, it is ending, albeit slowly. The not Christian aspect is dying slowest of all, but that will make no difference over time.
Well, the facts of the matter would probably be relevant. Are there Muslim dead buried there? If not, some could consider the action of placing a “crescent next to the crucifix” an act of provocation, not veneration.
Some court decisions have ruled that if one religion’s symbol is allowed, then every religion’s symbol must be. Which has led to some amusing contretemps when the Satanic Temple moves in and demands that it gets a spot. Many places have taken down their Christian symbols instead. Which of course was the intent. Christians hate, hate, hate the thought of giving other religions equality. And get apoplexy at the thought that atheists have equal rights.
WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) was originally applied not so much to religion as to class. It came from a study of the elite class in Philadelphia and later covered what we would now call the Establishment. (All those hippie slogans about fighting the Establishment? This is what they were against.) Protestant was an important marker at that time, due to the heavy anti-Catholic backlash when Kennedy ran for office. E. Digby Balzell’s* book, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America, was hugely influential in sociological circles and the acronym, actually coined by Andrew Hacker in 1957, spread immediately throughout the chattering class.
*A WASP himelf, with one of the great all-time WASP names.
9-0 on the issue of “offensive”; 6-3 on “scandalous”. I love 9-0 decisions. It’s like a particularly strong statement that the lower court ruling was not well thought out.
Much more interesting was the 5-4 today from the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of a gun-use enhancement statute, which the Court held was unconstitutionally vague. Gorsuch, J., not only joined the “liberal” justices; he wrote the opinion. United States v. Davis, 18-431, (2019).
I am okay with it. Unfavorable speech is what needs protection. This question was already decided in Matal v. Tam which struck down the disparaging portion of the same restrictions on trademarks and copyrights and I never suspected this outcome would be any different.
“Sorry, but before you can plant a Muslim crescent in this cemetary, you gotta plant a Muslim” :dubious: So, IOW, anytime a Muslim happens to display any trappings of his faith anywhere a Christian might see it, it’s automatically “an act of provocation”?
And it’s The Left that gets called “snowflakes.” whistles :rolleyes:
Assuming you simply misunderstood me, I will quote myself and ask you to re-read it and then reconsider your “anytime”, “any trappings”, “anywhere”, and “automatically” against my “some could consider”.
Just to be crystal clear, I used “some could consider” imagining a legal challenge brought by some asshole. Do you follow?
I disagree. I certainly believe (however horrible the belief is) that if a person wants to say that blacks are inferior and should be segregated, that is protected speech. If a person says that blacks should all be shipped back to Africa, that is also protected speech. Again, however horrible, if a person wants to call them all niggers, that is protected speech.
But if I have a brand of tobacco that I want to brand Nigger Hair Smoking Tobacco: Bigger Hair - Wikipedia
then what I am communicating there? Even the worthless ideas in my first paragraph above at least have some communicative value. Why is the name of my tobacco a speech issue?
How is it NOT speech? It may be speech to sell products, rather than speech designed to engage in social/political discourse, but it is speech, none the less.
