Prayer group to speaks in tongues at Arizona Capitol, by invitation of Republicans who want a state ban on abortion

submitted by YoMamma from (coppercourier.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

OH? So it prohibits things, and doesn't assure an inalienable right to things? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

Sad

[–]YoMamma[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

LOL

To put it another way: the nation and states cannot use religion in laws and cannot make laws that restrict religion.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think I'm this case it's well within the "allowed" territory of first amendment expression.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't think you can construe an argument that a representative is unable to invite a religious group to speak publicly at the capital anymore than they can invite any constituent to speak publicly at the capital. And prayer is simply a form of speech.

I also don't think first amendment really prohibits the use of "religion in laws" at least as far as religious reasoning is concerned. It would be a gross violation of the first amendment to pass a law making the Catholic church the authority on abortion, but a law that restricts abortion would not quality provided it neither establishes a particular religion or prohibits the free exercise of a religion. There are many laws that prohibit religious expression but they need to fall under very narrow conditions outside free exercise. Human sacrifice is a good example. It's an established religious practice with historical relevancy but isn't considered free exercise since it infringes on someones right to live.

I also think it's not really necessary to make 1st amendment insinuations against this sort of behavior. You merely need to go and say "the opposition is literally speaking gibberish, why should we take anything they say seriously?".

[–]YoMamma[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it's allowed. I am not making "1st Amendment insinuations against anything." I note the first Amendment because it separates church and state, for gery good reason (as anyone in the 18th century knew, religious wars destroyed much of Europe, and thus it was important to have laws that excluded religious extremism, some of which had been popular in the US). Congresspeople often argue about gods and prayer &c, and in this case a group was allowed to speak in tongues in the Arizona capitol. I am not arguing that this is not allowed. I could argue that it's an ethics violation in some state capitols to abuse the chamber like this, but it's certainly not illegal at the federal level. It's a way of disrespecting the US Constitution, and the US, by promoting a theocracy where there is a specific, important constitutional law against it. The US has thrived as a secular country, by contrast with theocratic leadership elsewhwre. Republicans who want religious extremism in the US should be shot.