Censorship & the First Amendment (OT)

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 9563

Hi --

Caius Marcius wrote:

> Perhaps we can get you to a similar state of arousal over a Circuit
> Court's recent banning of Ohio's State Motto (hint: it's not from JKR).
> Censorship in any form is bad, but we now have in our highly secular
> nation a court system which is systematically restricting all
> expressions of X-tian faith, quite in violation of the 1st Amendment's
> Free Exercise clause.

Ahem.  A gentle reminder that while Trina's message that you are replying
to is on-topic, your response has veered very off-topic.  Please remember
to include the (OT) in your subject heading.

I don't remember constitutional law all that well from law school --
probably not well enough to engage in a full-scale debate with you
Caius.  But, I might point out that you seem to conveniently forgotten to
include the entire wording of that clause of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  I might also suggest that there
is a constitutional difference between "prohibiting" free exercise of
religious beliefs and placing necessary restrictions on the exercise of
religion (particularly restrictions on exercise of religion in public
fora such as public schools).  The First Amendment rights are not
*absolute* (nor are they susceptible to one rigid interpretation).

IMO, the issue is considerably more complex than you suggest (I know, I
know -- in your mind, this group is overwhelmingly composed of a bunch of
weird wild-eyed liberals who will unfairly derogate the religious
fundamentalists at every turn).  But, *I* would *hardly* characterize the
current composition of the Supreme Court as being anti-Christian or
unsympathetic to the pet causes of the religious right.  I'd also take
issue that our nation can be characterized as "secular" (it may no longer
be composed of a majority of practicing Christians but that doesn't mean
it's "secular").

But, this is not the forum for this debate in any case.  If you want to
reply, be sure to put the OT warning in your subject heading (or email me
off-list -- but again, I don't have the time at present to dredge up old
con law notebooks or review the last 10 years of constitutional caselaw
to debate in earnest).

Penny