So, then, you would consider the only laws infringing on free exercise to be those that specifically state "you may not practice this religion" or "you must worship in this religion?"
No. Laws infringing on free exercise would be those which mandate any specific religious practice (and there are numerous of those already out there) and those banning any practice which is part of any religion without very strong secular reasons for doing so.Because it sounds like you're saying that enforcing religious tenets - with no other justification than religion - is fine if the wording of the law itself doesn't mention religion.
No! No law should be enacted unless there is good sound logical secular reasons for passing it.
Again, being religiously motivated or religiously supported does Not make a law intrinsically religious. Marriage is not inherently religious, so no laws regarding marriage are inherently religious unless they involve what churches or ceremonies may or may not be involved. This amendment does not do that. As I said at the very start, I can see DR66's point, but it is nit-picky. You have to look at things from a certain perspective, which you clearly cannot. It isn't worth arguing further. My opinion is that there are plenty of reasons besides the 1st Amendment to vehemently despise this attempt to change the Constitution. I will not vote for anyone who did not come out publicly against it. |
