but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs"
thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs.
Quite frankly, so what? Everytime a law is passed that not everyone agrees with, some portion of the country is "forced" to adhere to someone else's beliefs. You say this as if any religious group is able to simply implement laws without the views of dissenting Americans figuring into the process. Take any issue, and you'll find people on both sides. The people on either side are free to support their chosen position based on whatever ideology informs their understanding. Religious people are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when forming an opinion on the issues. Atheists or secularists are free to use that framework of thought to inform their opinions. Both sides (and everyone who lies on the spectrum somewhere in between) are free to lobby their representatives, vote on the issues, and otherwise attempt to influence the future of their local, state, and federal governments. You act as if somehow it's not kosher for religious people to do that.
religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion
. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."
In the context we're discussing, it IS exactly like any other interest. You CAN NOT prohibit people from lobbying their government, or informing their position opinions, or choosing their representation using religious belief as an underpinning of their choices.
religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it.
It's not hiding behind anything Dan. It's acknowledging that religious people have every right to include their religious beliefs in forming their opinions about how the government should work and who should represent them. The Constitution does not prohibit people from favoring one law over another, or one politician over another, for religious reasons. It simply doesn't.
if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.
You're not correct. If a religious group, using the lawful procedures of our country, successfully pushes through a law that enacts some policy that is in line with their religious beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make the law unconstitutional. Just because a law is in line with a religious belief and lobbied for by religious groups, that doesn't constitute an unconstitutional breach of your freedoms. Let's say that Religion X views speeding as a mortal sin. Religion X has sufficient numbers across the country that results in significant representation in Congress. Religion X lobbies their Congressmen, governors, and other politicians to increase penalties for speeding. Congress passes a law that increases the penalties for speeding. This law was passed largely due to the demand signal from adherents of Religion X. That doesn't make the law unconstitutional, because increasing the penalties for speeding does not amount to establishment of a state religion. Just because people's opinions on the law are informed by their religious beliefs, that doesn't constitutionally preclude them from influencing the law or the government.
torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.
No doubt, and pretty obvious. Not really pertinent to the type of situation we're talking about.
engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.
As I said before, you can't require people to take part in your religious rites. Again, not pertinent.
abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.
More of the same from you. Not pertinent. I stipulated long ago that the laws can't be written to require anyone to take part in religious events or rites and that a law against speeding, for example, can't be written like "Wherefore God says speeding is wrong, therefore speeding shall be penalized by fines or prison."
and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.
What the fuck? I did not ever say it was ok for people to inflict their religions in any ways that compare to those examples. Try again Dan.
but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs.
Wrong. The 1A also guarantees that the government won't/can't infringe on the right of citizens to freely practice their religions. You can't insist that religious people set aside any religious belief when forming their opinions on laws, politicians, or other governmental matters, and still claim to be supporting the protections provided by the 1A. It's asinine.
(insert pithy phrase here...)