tragic_pizza

I may have been speaking from my ass about Falwell. None of his websites contain any information about financial accountability so far...

Toto

Are you suggesting that churches and mosques should be allowed to violate the law of the land, just because they are religions?

The Free Exercise clause has never been interpreted to allow religious rituals that violate the law. This includes smoking peyote, practicing prostitution, and flying airplanes into large city structures.

tragic_pizza

I am suggesting that the monitoring of religious services, by the Government, whatever the antecedent, is illegal.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: tragic_pizza ]</p>

Toto

I repeat - if the government has probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed (say, a conspiracy to blow up members of other religions, perhaps your religion), does the fact that the crime is being plotted in a religious institution keep the government from even investigating?

There has to be some balance.

The only part of religion that is absolutely protected is freedom of conscience. The government cannot tell you what to believe, or force you to participate in a religious ritual.

tragic_pizza

No, there doesn't have to be "a balance."

You may be smoking marijuana in your living room. Drugs are illegal. By your reasoning, i can now come into your living room and watch to see if you are smoking marijuana.

An extreme example? Perhaps. However, there's not much to separate "monitoring" from "controlling."

hezekiah jones

How? How is the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion by entering mosques, churches, and synagogues?

In examining policies related to free exercise claims, judicial bodies will look to the purpose of the statute. If the explicit purpose of the statute is to negatively affect conduct simply because that conduct is dictated by religious belief, then the courts will apply "strict scrutiny" based on such purposeful interference.

If you want to make a solid free exercise argument, you must show that the government has taken an action whose purpose is to forbid or interfere with particular conduct because the conduct is dictated by a religious belief. In such an event the government action will likely be overturned.

However, if the government does not express such an intent, but its actions have the effect of inhibiting religious conduct, then the courts will apply "heightened scrutiny," in which case the state must demonstrate that it is pursuing a particularly important government goal, and that an exemption on behalf of the religious believers would substantially hinder the fulfillment of that goal. The state may very well demonstrate a particularly important government goal in this case, to say the least, based on recent events.

Do you think the potential presence of FBI agents in those mosques, churches, etc., will have a chilling effect on the type of activities that go on there in the absence of FBI officers?

By the way the free exercise guarantees, like all Constitutional guarantees, are in tension with guarantees enumerated elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. The daunting task for reviewing courts is to balance the individual needs of citizens against the greater whole as represented by the government.

I'm not arguing either at the moment. I'm just trying to understand your point, and what sort of case you would argue against the FBI directives.

Toto

No you can't - because there is also a 4th amendment prohibiting that sort of preemptive surveillance.

But if I were violating the law in my home and you obtained a valid warrant, you could come into my home to investigate. Why could you not go into a church or mosque to investigate under similar circumstances? If you couldn't, what prevents me from declaring my home to be a church (First Church of Toto) and breaking whatever laws I want there? If I could do this, it would be the end of laws. (There's some quote out there from one of the Supreme Court Justices that says this - I'll look for it.)

hezekiah jones

A bad example. You have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in your own home, whereas you have no equivalent expectation in a public building such as a church. Fourth Amendment.

ohwilleke

Actually, churches have somewhat less paperwork to file than other non-profits.

scigirl

Actually, I'm pretty sure that some native american tribes can smoke peyote, but there are restrictions. I remember vaguely hearing about this from my Resident Advisor days in college. I'm sure it's legal on some reservations as well (please note the state which I am from!!) I'll have to check up more on this.

Although, the native american rights/privileges stem more from the history of how they were treated, IMHO, and not so much religious freedom. I'll have to check up on this and get back to you.

scigirl

[edited to remove a comment, due to her intense dislike for every argument either referring to Hitler or 9/11. )

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>