"Freedom of religion" and "Separation of Church

No they're not.

You can believe in religion and have a populace that believes in many religions while still basing law on secularism.

Freedom of religion is also not without exception just like freedom of speech.

You cannot preform illegal activity in the name of your religion. Nor can you impose laws that have no logical basis but religious doctrine. Especially not when not everybody adheres to that religious doctrine.

Viewing the world in such black and white is actual, factual autism.

Freedom doesn't exist, not in the liberkek way at least.

There is no 100% xyz and 100% abc.

The laws are malleable enough for those two to work.

>>284707
this.

>>284707
/thread.

Who´s Benito Juárez

The first amendment is to keep government out of religion.
Not religion out of Governance.
Look at the specific wording
>respecting the establishment of religion
Meaning
>the government cannot make a new religion and force everyone to join

File: 1446834020518.gif (647KB, 450x660px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 450x660px

>>284707

>You can believe in religion and have a populace that believes in many religions while still basing law on secularism.

In theory yes. In practice, no.

>You cannot preform illegal activity in the name of your religion.

The government decides what is or isn't illegal. It always does.

>Nor can you impose laws that have no logical basis but religious doctrine.

A town in California tried to ban circumcision but Jews sued and had the ban thrown out. Same thing happened in Germany. That's religion over law. If a person can sue based on their religion, then there is no separation of church and state. It is a fantasy.

>>284783
No anon, it's only Christians that can't have any religiously based laws.

>>284783
>ban circumcision
We should though. Why the fuck is it permissible to mutilate infant genitalia? I don't give a fuck about your book.

>>284783
>In theory yes. In practice, no.
Explain?
"Don't kill people, dude." is a very general law that transcends religious morals. Its not something specific to the 10 Commandments Alone.
>>284783
>A town in California tried to ban circumcision but Jews sued and had the ban thrown out. Same thing happened in Germany. That's religion over law.
They sued based on 1) Free Speech and 2) Freedom of Religion.

Law banning your right to cut off foreskins = Law fucking up your right to practice your religion.

You dense motherfucker.

>>284802

It's possible because of "Religious Freedom." This is why it is impossible for "Religious Freedom" and "Separation of Church & State" to co-exist. It's a fantasy that needs to die. Pick one or the other you cannot have both.

>>284802
Circumcision is not a Christian practice.
It was started by the Kellogg company.

>>284813
My religion now includes sacrificing people. Ban it and you're violating my religious freedom.

>>284783
>A law that specifically targets Jewish practice

That's not religion over law as the law itself is unconstitutional and targets the practice of a specific religion.

You're not even using an example that coincides with your point.

You cannot create a law that targets a specific religion. Nor can you create a law that favors a specific religion.

>>284822
>"Don't kill people, dude." is a very general law that transcends religious morals.

If I ban your right to do so, it isnt because WAAAH CHRISTIAN OPPRESSION, its because of the law.

File: 1446826568308.gif (442KB, 441x270px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 441x270px

>>284813

>"Don't kill people, dude."

Because we all know that's the only law on the books. It's not like there are actually thousands of laws.

>They sued based on 1) Free Speech and 2) Freedom of Religion.

And they won because of "Religious Freedom"

This proves that it is impossible to have "Separation of Church & State" and religious freedom at the same time. If a person can sue and have secular laws struck down based on their religious beliefs, then there is no separation of church and state. It is a fantasy. A lie.

>>284837
If your law supercededs my religious freedom you're violating it. Law is unjust.
Or, you actually allow the law to govern religiously and ban certain religious acts.

File: 1446834573877.jpg (107KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 604x604px

>>284828

>That's not religion over law
>the law itself is unconstitutional and targets the practice of a specific religion.

Holy doublethink batman.

If a specific religion is protected from the power of secular law, then the is obviously no "Separation of Church & State." It is a falsehood.

>>284858
Bro you're a fucking moron. This is some government 101 shit right here. Go read Lemon v. Kurtzman.

>>284858
>if a particular religion is protected

ALL religions are protected from state interference.

>>284606
Separation of Church & State means "Clergy can't participate in government." Negro.

Its a product of the Enlightenment, were people just have had it with Catholic Clergymen dipping their shit in state affairs. There ought to be just one governing entity.

>>284858
You're a falsehood.

>>284858
What single religion is protected from the power of secular law? All religions are protected from unjust persecution and targeted laws.

A law cannot target the practice of Jews unjustly. Or Christians. Or Muslims. Or Buddhists. Or pastafarians.

Banning of circumcision specifically does just that. It's targeting a religious practice. The practices of religions are protected by constitutional right as long as they stay within the law. I. E. No murder,
Rape, etc.

On the flip side of that, you cannot pass a law that specifically favors one religion over another. A law cannot be passed simply because the Christian God said so. Or because Muslim God said so. Or because Buddha said so. Laws must have a secular basing and cannot show favoritism to any one religion as all religions are equal.

So you have protection from unjust persecution, freedom of religion, And you have a seperation of church and state.

>For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and also must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

>>284879
>>284899
>can refute an argument
Come on guys, try harder.
>>284887
Except they are not.
Christian teachers are not allowed to lead prayer in school; or even do prayer after a football game now.
Muslims most certainly can.

File: Lenin Cat.jpg (32KB, 317x317px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 317x317px

>>284879

>The government says so then it must be true.

What I'm saying is that regardless of what any authority says, you cannot have "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State" co-exist at the same time. If a person can sue based on their religious beliefs then OBVIOUSLY the church and state are connected, no matter how fervently it is denied.

>>284887

>ALL religions are protected from state interference.

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

Go ahead, create a religion based around the idea that Jesus wanted everybody to grow marijuana and see how far you get in court when you sue for discrimination. As far as the authorities are concerned unless you fall into one of the top 10 religions on the planet, your religion doesn't even exist and it is not worthy of protection.

>>284914
The banning of female and male circumcision is targeting wrongful religious practices fuck head.
It's not about banning religious practice.
It's like I said
>>284822
>>284851
the first amendment is regarding if a government tries to establish a religion and make everyone join.(*cough*england*cough*)

>>284914

>you cannot pass a law that specifically favors one religion over another.

Would Mormons be allowed to sue if their employer asked them to transport alcohol?

>>284926
That's actually a bit of grey area it seems. Pretty much every rabbi will tell you that circumcision is a vital part of jewish practice. Were it to be banned the jews would no doubt say that we're making Judaism illegal.

In my opinion they should be forced to get over it, because circumcision is a barbaric and senseless practice. But you could argue that it's a violation of their freedom of religion.

>>284940

>But you could argue that it's a violation of their freedom of religion.

That's religion over law.

>>284936

I'd imagine if their employer insisted after being told it was against their religion they'd have a case.
I'm guessing if the Mormon took a job as a trucker for a brewery and then sued he'd get laughed out of court though.

>>284936
The same Mormon that's not legally allowed to marry multiple wives?

>>284945
Right, which we shouldn't and don't allow.

So I can kind of see OP's point in that we don't have true freedom of religion. We have freedom of religion so as long as you practice it within the confines of the law.

>>284966

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/10/feds-get-muslim-truckers-240k-after-getting-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/

>But we totally have separation of church and state guys! Religion has no influence on law whatsoever! Its not like the government is able to hand out 200,000 dollar fines because somebody got offended!

>>284991
>Religion has no influence on law whatsoever!

This isn't what separation of church and state means. It just means the state can't legislate on the basis of privileging religion or emphasizing one over the other.

That case was a civil rights case of one guy suing a business and the courts found the business at fault (which I think is a little retarded but I can see the logic) for firing a man on the basis of his religious beliefs.
Personally I think if someone's religion means they can't do their job they shouldn't be employed in that job, that that's still irrelevant to the concept of separation of church and state.

It's the same idea as free speech. It's only there to stop the STATE from fucking with you. Nothing more.

>>284813
>"Don't kill people, dude." is a very general law that transcends religious morals. Its not something specific to the 10 Commandments Alone.
"Don't kill people for no reason" is what you mean. The problem is there are disagreements between religions and secularists over what warrants a "reason" to kill. According to the government's laws, gay people don't deserve to die. But according to the bible, sodomites deserve death. How can Christians have freedom of religion when they can't practice that part of religion?

>>284606
>No religion or religious practices are recognized by the government in any special way
That's not secularism, that's laicism

>>284990
This

>>285071
This

Freedom of Religion, it can be argued, exists explicitly BECAUSE of the Separation of Church and State. The State can not make any law that interferes with religious practices INTENTIONALLY. The government cannot create a law that specifically bans a religion, or bans a religious practice because of the religion it belongs to. On the other hand, religions still have to obey the law like everyone else. Laws are not created with religious institutions in mind, even if the law affects the religion. For instance, it is illegal for muslims to kill non-believers not because they are muslims, but because killing without due cause is the law of the land.

Basically, Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and State are concepts that protect the right to practice any religion free of government interference either from secular or religious persecution; these concepts also specifically ensure that no religion is ABOVE the general law of the land.

We all follow the same laws, whether we are atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever.