Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another case would be that if a law were imposed that represented a specifically religious idea or something unique to a religious belief. That would be unconstitutional.
That's exactly what is wrong with the prohibition of polygamy: it's something unique to a single, in this case, Christian religious belief.
Much of Judaism is ritual: prohibition against eating other than kosher food (except when necessary to save a life); lighting Shabbat candles; prohibition against any form of work on Shabbat; lighting Chanukah Menorah; fasting on Yom Kippur; circumcision of male child on the 8th say (except when medical problems delay, or, may even, prevent); etc., etc.
Much of Judaism is ritual: prohibition against eating other than kosher food (except when necessary to save a life); lighting Shabbat candles; prohibition against any form of work on Shabbat; lighting Chanukah Menorah; fasting on Yom Kippur; circumcision of male child on the 8th say (except when medical problems delay, or, may even, prevent); etc., etc.
Christianity has none such rituals.
All of those things are still perfectly legal, to my knowledge. No?
Some Christian sects certainly have rituals. Catholocism springs immediately to mind with things like confession, prayer candles, Lent, etc.
That's exactly what is wrong with the prohibition of polygamy: it's something unique to a single, in this case, Christian religious belief.
Polygamy is a good example. General laws against polygamy won't be ruled unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. There are secular interests in the prohibition. My own opposition to civil polygamy has nothing to do with religion. I just don't have a feel for how it would work in the context of all our laws that presume 2 people in a marriage--- social security, child custody, insurance, etc.
Will courts eventually permit polygamy for those whose religion commands it ? Possible. I think courts have carved out religious exemptions to general laws. Peyote use comes to mind.
But then, the law itself has nothing to do with religion; the lawmakers simply have religious (or non-religious, as the case may be) reasons for wanting the law to be passed. We're free to vote (or not vote) as our concience dictates -- whether for religious or personal reasons, or simply because we think a purple hippopotamus named 'Henry' told us to.
).
This has been my point the entire time. When asked what we should do about those voting on religious beliefs, hooligan replied that that is what the supreme court is for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
