Bill of Rights? What Bill of Rights?

arbilad · Head Chef

Bill of Rights? What Bill of Rights?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

From the article first linked... "in the common area of her apartment building".

Note, it is in the common areas of the building, not within the apartments themselves. That sounds reasonable...

From the second linked article:

"The College Republicans say they simply copied the script from an image on the Internet and didn't know it bore the name of Allah in Arabic script.

"A student who is not a member of the club had filed a complaint with university officials after the protest.

"The student claimed that the Republican students engaged in 'acts of incivility' and 'intimidation' and created a 'hostile environment' by publicly walking over the terrorist flags.

" 'I believe that the complaint is [about] the desecration of Allah,' a university official told the San Francisco Chronicle."

Culturally, it is offensive to Muslims to see anything desecrated that contains even the written word Allah. The legal complaint is indeed superfulous, but the feeling felt by many Muslims about such a deed is very similar to the way we as LDS view evangelical preachers who mock and desecrate the garments of the holy priesthood...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Muslims are also opposed to the creation or depiction of any image. You can't draw a bird without breaking a commandment. The whole idea of art is based in geometric patterns and designs but they cannot be images.

--Ray

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The First Amendment of the US Constitution provides that: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, the Constitution gives no authority to the FedGov either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and the Tenth Amendments effectively forbid such tyranny. A major reason that special interest groups can prevail on the FedGov to violate this and other principles of the Constitution is because "we the people" are too occupied with more important issues.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

That is all good and fine to use that argument, but would you be as supportive of it if it were Wiccans or Muslims or Pagans or Athiests (or Communists or Neo-nazis or Illegal Immigrants under the guise of "religion") who put up their stuff in public areas on government owned property?

Honest answers now...

And, if the "ban" cited means that LDS missionaries aren't to do unsolicited proselyting (aka go door to door) in HUD housing complexes, what then should the Church's response be? Ignore it and have them go in looking for people to teach, or abide by the law of the land?

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

That is all good and fine to use that argument, but would you be as supportive of it if it were Wiccans or Muslims or Pagans or Athiests (or Communists or Neo-nazis or Illegal Immigrants under the guise of "religion") who put up their stuff in public areas on government owned property?

Honest answers now...

And, if the "ban" cited means that LDS missionaries aren't to do unsolicited proselyting (aka go door to door) in HUD housing complexes, what then should the Church's response be? Ignore it and have them go in looking for people to teach, or abide by the law of the land?

The law of the land is the Constitution, which forbids the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. This is an illegal restriction that the government placed. It is not law. But they have the power to back it up because they can arrest you and make you miserable if you don't obey their illegal demands.
They have since backed off a bit and allowed an angel ornament, BTW. But it's still an illegal restriction. For that matter, the government has no legal power to start housing developments.
And if a majority of residents of an apartment complex that I was living in wanted to have a wiccan celebration in the common room, I would move out. But they have the right to hold their celebration, as repugnant as it would be.
The government has no right or constitutional power to restrict these resident's free exercise of religion. This is the salient point: if the Federal government is not explicitly granted a power in the Constitution, it does not have that power. If it then exercises a power that is not in the constitution, it is no better than a mugger on the street enforcing his will with a gun.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, so the same thing has been said in three different posts now by two of you...

What was the point of bringing it up? To complain about the government / ACLU / anything that does not agree with a libertarian interpretation of the Constitution?

I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I really have a hard time seeing this as a restriction of anyone being able to freely exercise their religion. Wouldn't the person's religion have to either explicitly or implicitly state that part of the followers religious observance needs to include public display of religious symbols in order for this to constitute a governmental restriction against their freedom to exercise religion?

Cuz, as I see it, if it doesn't, then it follows the same slippery slope argument that is often used in the small pot smoking and hallucinigenic drug taking (non-native American) groups that try to justify it as legal because it is related to their "religion".

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, if it isn't restricting practice of religion to tell someone that they can't put up an angel decoration, then what is it? A restriction of their fishing rights? Can the government force an LDS to drink a Coca Cola just because there is nothing against caffeinated sodas in the word of wisdom? What it comes down to is individual conscience. These people wanted to practice their religion by putting an angel ornament up in a common gathering place. The government restricted that, despite being specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing so, and that doesn't bother you in the least. That disturbs me.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

That is the real question then, isn't it... were the people actually trying to practice their religion or not?

It is the same thing as whether or not to allow nativity scenes or menorahs on the grounds of city hall or the state house or a public school...

I guess where I draw the line is that individual conscience does not necessarily equate to religious expression. And religious expression whenever, wherever, and however one chooses does not fall under the freedom to not have the government force one to subscribe to this or that religion (which is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects).

I'm not saying I support the rule that HUD made. I'm just saying I don't think it is what the WND is accusing it of... an infringement on freedom to subscribe to the religion (or lack thereof) that one chooses.

HUD is the landlord. What if the landlord was a private citizen / property management firm? Would the same complaint about the rule be made?

arbilad · Head Chef

Actually, I didn't think it was under question at all that they were exercising their religion. I still don't see how that could be questioned. It was a religious act. They were expressing their religion. Even splitting hairs, it still winds up as an act of religious expression.
And no, the Constitutional protections don't stop at just preventing an establishment of an official religion. To quote the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Basically, government can't tell you that you can't excercise your religion in a free manner.
You could try to make the argument that this wasn't Congress making a law against it, and thus it was alright. But that argument falls apart pretty quickly. HUD was established by an act of Congress (not that Congress had the power to do so, but that's moot for this point). Any authority HUD has it gets from Congress. So either Congress has tried to authorize them to restrict religion, which it can't legally do, or HUD has taken it upon itself, which it can't legally do because it doesn't have the authority from anywhere to do so.
Any way you cut this, government was infringing upon constitutional rights.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

The argument still has not shown how a rule stating that a Christmas tree or decorations for the Holidays in the common areas can not include items of a religious nature prohibits the free exercise of religion. Does the religion of those who complained state they have to put religious symbols on decorations put up in common areas?

Talking about what Congress and the departments it sets up have the power to do based on one interpretation of the Constitution does not answer the questions I have put forth.

Nor does simply equating religious expression as the same thing as freedom from state established / imposed religion / state sanctioned persecution for not following the culturally "orthodox" religions.

I just think if it is not convincing to me, a rather conservative and highly religious individual, it surely is not going to be persuasive to anyone except those already think that way.

Edited to add
I'm curious, who actually read the memorandum that was attached to the article that caused all this commotion? http://www.afa.net/pdfs/fairhousing.pdf

I don't see this as a mandate. It appears to be an advisory to staff as to things they should think about in helping to avoid fair housing discrimination complaints. Please note that in the next section of the memo, it clearly states that religious activities can be held in the community areas so long as staff is not involved in any manner and that the facilities are made available to all groups of residents regardless of religion. That does not sound like infringing on the right to exercise religion freely...

Yet, reading the AFA's petition, it is quite interesting to see how they have selectively chosen things, even to the point of taking completely out of context. For example, "the elderly grandmother cannot place a small Christmas tree outside her door (because that area is a "commons area") if it contains any religious symbols or religious words, even an angel!" Yet, according to the HUD memo, "Keep in mind residents are free to decorate their apartments, as well as their exterior door to the apartment (as long as they do not damage the door), however they wish."

I just don't think the AFA is as "pure" in it's altruism as they claim to be.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 15:16, 2007-11-12