Religions > Atheism > Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious Liberty
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2006 10:54:03 AM |
| Object: |
Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious Liberty |
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0221-17.htm
Common Dreams (press release) - Portland,ME,USA
Americans United Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious
Liberty
Unanimous High Court Says Federal Government Failed To Show 'Compelling
Interest' In Banning Hallucinogenic Tea
WASHINGTON - February 21 - Americans United for Separation of Church and
State lauded today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision barring the federal
government from interfering with religious freedom.
The high court ruled unanimously that the government “failed to
demonstrate” that it had a “compelling interest in barring” the sacramental
use of a tea containing a hallucinogen regulated by federal drug laws.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious Liberty |
23 Feb 2006 12:32:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0221-17.htm
Common Dreams (press release) - Portland,ME,USA
Americans United Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious
Liberty
Unanimous High Court Says Federal Government Failed To Show 'Compelling
Interest' In Banning Hallucinogenic Tea
WASHINGTON - February 21 - Americans United for Separation of Church and
State lauded today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision barring the federal
government from interfering with religious freedom.
The high court ruled unanimously that the government “failed to
demonstrate” that it had a “compelling interest in barring” the sacramental
use of a tea containing a hallucinogen regulated by federal drug laws.
Is the Court saying that Congress can violate the First Amendment if it
has "compelling interest"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious Liberty |
24 Feb 2006 03:01:22 PM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> Americans United for Separation of Church and State
:|> http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0221-17.htm
:|> Common Dreams (press release) - Portland,ME,USA
:|>
:|> Americans United Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious
:|> Liberty
:|> Unanimous High Court Says Federal Government Failed To Show 'Compelling
:|> Interest' In Banning Hallucinogenic Tea
:|>
:|>
:|> WASHINGTON - February 21 - Americans United for Separation of Church and
:|> State lauded today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision barring the federal
:|> government from interfering with religious freedom.
:|>
:|> The high court ruled unanimously that the government “failed to
:|> demonstrate” that it had a “compelling interest in barring” the sacramental
:|> use of a tea containing a hallucinogen regulated by federal drug laws.
:|
:|Is the Court saying that Congress can violate the First Amendment if it
:|has "compelling interest"?
"Compelling Interest used to be the standard under which the Free Exercise
Clause was measured. That is until Scalia cahged it in a decisoion that
many felt totally gutted the free exercise clause .
Where have you been?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Praises Supreme Court Decision Protecting Religious Liberty |
23 Feb 2006 06:03:06 AM |
|
|
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote:
Is the Court saying that Congress can violate the First Amendment if it
has "compelling interest"?
That is old doctrine. Some things you cannot legally do under the
First Amendment:
a) shout "fire" in a crowded theater
b) read classified documents aloud on a street corner
c) violate copyright laws
d) slander a private citizen falsely with intent to defame
There are court cases that explain the reasoning on each of these
matters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
