Comments on: Limitations of the First Amendment

By: xJane

xJane — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:41:08 +0000

In similar news, Obama's administration has taken to using "freedom of worship" rather than "freedom of religion", which is either "troubling" or a "warm and fuzzy" piece of rhetoric that has no greater meaning. Still worth taking note of: Why “Freedom of Worship” Is Not Enough. (via. The few comments at this blog are worth reading)

By: xJane

xJane — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:39:56 +0000

I was just listening to Atheists Talk, the podcast of Minnesota Atheists. The particular episode (in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2—iTunes links) was a book review of the Age of American Unreason, by Susan Jacoby [http://cmp.ly/5]. In it, according to the podcast, she posits that the reason that America is so religious while Europe is so secular is that Europe had institutionalized religion (that is, no separation of church and state), which caused its citizenry to critically doubt and question both their religion and their government in healthy and productive ways. By contrast, since America has maintained this fiction of separation, we have not had a chance to closely analyze our national religion in the same way. An interesting argument in light of the above—perhaps it is in the best interest of future American atheists(™) to allow the Christian right to install their religion in the government so that it can die the death it is due and we can then move forward as a country. Tom: The convention in blogs, as opposed to academic papers or legal journals, is toward linking, rather than footnoting. Further, with regard to the convention of linking in blogs, a blogger must take into account whether or not the reader will actually follow the link and whether following the link will add or detract from the message being sent. Also, sometimes I'm just lazy. As to the source of the quotes, all were taken from the amicus brief that I linked to above. Everything else may fairly be taken as bold assertions made by me based on my experience and personal viewpoint.

By: Tom Hepner

Tom Hepner — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:36:07 +0000

Good stuff as usual. Some footnotes would be nice though.
Cheers

By: John

John — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:03:01 +0000

I am grateful that you highlighted these cases. My concern is strategic deployment of effort and attention in the broad front that is the war on our first amendment rights. My focus is so divided among so many issues that I want to maximize its efficacy, and this probably goes for many in our info-overload world who want to protect their rights. So I’m curious about the situation in general, and where these cases fit into the big picture. Maybe something for the both of us to explore in the near future?

By: xJane

xJane — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:35:23 +0000

I don't think the amendment is much to worry about. I do think that this case is something to worry about/watch. Just like the "small" anti-choice amendments and cases are slowly chipping away at Roe and so, while each is not "a serious threat", they fly under the radar until we wake up one morning and someone's advocating criminalizing miscarriages. And just as I believe that there is a portion of our society which wants to see Roe overturned, I also believe that there is a portion of our society which wants to see all non-Christians as second-class citizens (in one way or another) and I see this case as one of those small nails in that coffin.

By: Th.

Th. — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:52:17 +0000

Yeah, that won’t stick. I can’t even pretend to try to worry about that.

By: John

John — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:46:21 +0000

xJane, great analysis–I’ve long hoped you would bring your legal training to bear on our favorite topics here at Mind on Fire. Thanks!

On a practical note, how seriously should we take this threat? How credible is the threat to our civil liberties from this particular angle, from these particular groups? The few cases that have come up before the Roberts court have leaned in favor of less separation, right?

While indeed scary, I don’t consider the addendum in comment #1 to have any chance of success, especially as the nation’s religious demographics are predicted diversify greatly in the coming years (I’m not saying this radical minority isn’t strong, just not strong enough to pass a constitutional amendment).

By: xJane

xJane — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:30:32 +0000

a scary little addendum to this that a friend just brought to my attention: Christian America seeks to add an amendment that reads as follows:

The United States is a Christian Nation. Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of all Christian religions, nor make law giving preference of one Christian denomination over another Christian denomination, nor giving preference of one Christian sect over another Christian sect. This amendment replaces the religion clause of the first amendment and supersedes all treaties as relevant to this amendment.