Should the laws that protect religious rights be changed?

Question

The rules seem simple: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution charges the government with guaranteeing religious freedom while prohibiting it from advancing the interests of any one church or faith. Yet within this seemingly simple framework lurks a host of complexities and unanswered questions. How far can and should government go to accommodate individuals' religious practice? And to what extent can the state cooperate with religious institutions, for example by funding faith-based social service providers or displaying religious symbols on public property?

Answer 1

I think this has been stretched.  I've never seen that freedom of religion means people should be afforded special privileges or not have to obey the law.  Most freedoms are that way.  I have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I can slander people.

People should be able to pursue their beliefs and faith, religious or not free from persecution as long as they act in a lawful manner.

I'm constantly amazed to hear the argument that people should not have to obey a law because they believe otherwise.   The purpose of law is to say you need to behave a certain way regardless of what you believe.  

Answer 2

Volumes have been written on the First Amendment rights pertaining to religion.  My understanding is that the founding fathers wanted to accomplish two basic objectives:  First they wanted to avoid the possibility of a "state religion" such as the Church of England against which they were rebelling.  Second they did not want government to interfere with any individual's free exercise of their own religion.  As a result the Courts may prevent a small town from putting up a manger scene at Christmas in front of City Hall by reasoning it would make Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sufis feel unwelcome. Or the Courts may prohibit polygamy, human sacrifice or marijuana use even though some religions or sects may include those things among their tenets or rituals.  I would think the government should have no problem giving funds to faith-based social service providers if the money was used strictly for necessary social services and not directly or indirectly for proselytizing.  It would make sense for the government to give support to the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities if they had projects to help Katrina victims especially since FEMA failed so badly.  Displaying religious symbols on public property is a little harder to justify since there are readily available alternatives like putting the display up in front of a synagogue, mosque or temple or even in your own front yard.  People of faith are not prevented from having the display. It's just a matter of where.

Answer 3

I say preserve the Constitution.

Answer 4

Why change what has worked for over 200 years.

Answer 5

Yes, they should be changed.  The government should stay out of religion as long as it is not a profit based organization. Then it should tax it.   Religious symbols and sayings are on our money, in our courts and every where else.  Leave it alone.  Why does anyone care?  What major difference in anyone's life does it make to see the 10 commandments on public property?  I see all kinds of things on public property, like illegal immigrants.  So what?