Is the 1st Amendment the same with or without the 2nd clause?

[anotherneil]

Here are the 1st Amendment clauses:

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

It seems the 2nd clause is unnecessary if you take into account the 4th & 5th clauses.

Would any rights be taken away if the 2nd clause were omitted?

 

[crossfire]

Here are the 1st Amendment clauses:

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

It seems the 2nd clause is unnecessary if you take into account the 4th & 5th clauses.

Would any rights be taken away if the 2nd clause were omitted?

Yes, rights would be taken away, as it would allow Congress to make laws prohibiting whichever religion they wish.

 

[anotherneil]

Yes, rights would be taken away, as it would allow Congress to make laws prohibiting whichever religion they wish.

It seems something like that would still ignore and infringe on the 5th clause.

 

[crossfire]

It seems something like that would still ignore and infringe on the 5th clause.

Not all religions are congregational.

 

[anotherneil]

Not all religions are congregational.

Ok, please go on - what's the point or argument?

While you're at it, let's also take into account everything else from this can of worms, such as being able to ban being isolated or being a hermit, traveling alone, sleeping alone, etc.

 

[crossfire]

Ok, please go on - what's the point or argument?

While you're at it, let's also take into account everything else from this can of worms, such as being able to ban being isolated or being a hermit, traveling alone, sleeping alone, etc.

What is your behind your motivation to remove the restraint on the government afforded by the 2nd clause of the First Amendment?

 

[anotherneil]

What is your behind your motivation to remove the restraint on the government afforded by the 2nd clause of the First Amendment?

Loaded question.

Now, back to this: Is the 1st Amendment the same with or without the 2nd clause?

 

[crossfire]

Loaded question.

Now, back to this: Is the 1st Amendment the same with or without the 2nd clause?

Dodge.

 

[anotherneil]

Dodge.

Pointing out that a question is loaded is not a dodge, just like asking someone who doesn't cheat, "when are you going to stop cheating?" and not getting an answer isn't a dodge, either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here are the 1st Amendment clauses:

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

It seems the 2nd clause is unnecessary if you take into account the 4th & 5th clauses.

Would any rights be taken away if the 2nd clause were omitted?

2 and 5 were major contentions when the government willfully violated religious during covid.

 

[Nakosis]

Here are the 1st Amendment clauses:

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

It seems the 2nd clause is unnecessary if you take into account the 4th & 5th clauses.

Would any rights be taken away if the 2nd clause were omitted?

What the 2nd clause does is prevent the government from restricting access to certain services or employment because of an affiliation to a specific religion. For example, they can't pass a law which would prevent a Muslim from becoming POTUS.

 

[anotherneil]

What the 2nd clause does is prevent the government from restricting access to certain services or employment because of an affiliation to a specific religion. For example, they can't pass a law which would prevent a Muslim from becoming POTUS.

That's an interesting assertion & it does seem to make sense; do you have anything to back this up - founding fathers literature, court opinions, expert essays, etc?

 

[PureX]

2 and 5 were major contentions when the government willfully violated religious during covid.

That's actually false. The exercise of religion does not extend beyond the laws of the land. So when the laws of the land prohibited mass assemblies of people to prevent sickness and death from a pandemic, and some people broke those laws because of their religion, those people were still on the wrong. Because being religious does not override obeying the laws of land.

And the laws against assembly in that situation were not aimed at countering any religion. They were aimed at countering a pandemic.

 

[Nakosis]

That's an interesting assertion & it does seem to make sense; do you have anything to back this up - founding fathers literature, court opinions, expert essays, etc?

Not in so many words but...

At times, the two clauses related to religious freedom have been in
conflict. For example, in 1983 the Supreme Court heard a case involving use of
state funds to hire a chaplain to offer a prayer at the opening of state legislative
sessions. While some people challenged the use of state funds as a violation of
the establishment clause, others argued that the prayer represented an exercise
of the legislators’ free exercise rights.
https://media.okstate.edu/faculty/j...tionlessons/Background_on_First_Amendment.pdf

 

[anotherneil]

That's actually false. The exercise of religion does not extend beyond the laws of the land. So when the laws of the land prohibited mass assemblies of people to prevent sickness and death from a pandemic, and some people broke those laws because of their religion, those people were still on the wrong. Because being religious does not override obeying the laws of land.

And the laws against assembly in that situation were not aimed at countering any religion. They were aimed at countering a pandemic.

The Constitution is an agreement, and part of that agreement in the Bill of Rights is the right to assemble peacefully. If we don't stick to that agreement, then we have nothing but a broken, compromised system. You could argue that people assembling during a pandemic is not peaceful (I think I, myself, would), but since the 1st Amendment also has the 2nd clause, it would be an infringement for the government to ban people from congregating for religious purposes - pandemic or no pandemic.

Wow, looks like I just made an argument for the case being made by @crossfire & I answered my own OP question!

 

[PureX]

The Constitution is an agreement, and part of that agreement in the Bill of Rights is the right to assemble peacefully. If we don't stick to that agreement, then we have nothing but a broken, compromised system. You could argue that people assembling during a pandemic is not peaceful (I think I, myself, would), but since the 1st Amendment also has the 2nd clause, it would be an infringement for the government to ban people from congregating for religious purposes - pandemic or no pandemic.

A good law today can be become a bad law tomorrow because conditions change. The point of creating and following laws is not to exercise perpetuity regardless of functionality. The purpose IS their functionality. And in this instance the circumstance of a pandemic cause a good (functional) law to become a bad (dysfunctional) one, temporarily. So we had to suspend it, temporarily.

Refusing to acknowledge the ultimate purpose of social functionality of law so as to enshrine it to the point where it becomes dysfunctional would be both absurd and perverse.

Wow, looks like I just made an argument for the case being made by @crossfire & I answered my own OP question!

Whatever floats your boat, as they say.

 

[anotherneil]

Not in so many words but...

At times, the two clauses related to religious freedom have been in
conflict. For example, in 1983 the Supreme Court heard a case involving use of
state funds to hire a chaplain to offer a prayer at the opening of state legislative
sessions. While some people challenged the use of state funds as a violation of
the establishment clause, others argued that the prayer represented an exercise
of the legislators’ free exercise rights.
https://media.okstate.edu/faculty/j...tionlessons/Background_on_First_Amendment.pdf

Hmm, that's not what I was thinking of when I said that it does seem to make sense.

In this case, it is a case of violation of the establishment clause. Not using state funds to hire a chaplain isn't the same as barring those who are religious from serving as legislators, for one thing. They can pray during their own time in their own churches or places of worship, and pay out of their own pockets; now if - say - they were to get arrested for doing this, then yes, it would be an infringement on their freedom of religion. A legislative session is only supposed to be for state (or federal government) business, not free religious services paid for by taxpayers.

Bottom line is based on the 1st clause, there simply shouldn't be any prayer or chaplains, even if legislators voluntarily paid to hire one out of their own pockets, involved in any legislative sessions at all - local, state, or federal. This doesn't conflict with any of the other clauses or any other part of the US Constitution.

 

[anotherneil]

A good law today can be become a bad law tomorrow because conditions change. The point of creating and following laws is not to exercise perpetuity regardless of functionality. The purpose IS their functionality. And in this instance the circumstance of a pandemic cause a good (functional) law to become a bad (dysfunctional) one, temporarily. So we had to suspend it, temporarily.

Refusing to acknowledge the ultimate purpose of social functionality of law so as to enshrine it to the point where it becomes dysfunctional would be both absurd and perverse.

Whatever floats your boat, as they say.

There are ways to remedy any problems with the US Constitution (e.g. an amendment - which has been done before) without trashing it.

I'm not convinced that there even is a need to remedy anything about the US Constitution because of a pandemic, because that's their choice if people want to go ahead and infect each other; it's their constitutional right to make such a choice. It's none of my business to tell religious individuals that their choices that they make for themselves are stupid or should be outlawed.

That being said, I'm not opposed to some generalized ordinance or something that mandates people either go home and self-isolate after attending religious services or other gatherings, or get tested to make sure they didn't get infected. I see no reason for why something like this couldn't be done, and I see no reason for amending or trashing the US Constitution to deal with a pandemic, either.

 

[PureX]

There are ways to remedy any problems with the US Constitution (e.g. an amendment - which has been done before) without trashing it.

I'm not convinced that there even is a need to remedy anything about the US Constitution because of a pandemic, because that's their choice if people want to go ahead and infect each other; it's their constitutional right to make such a choice. It's none of my business to tell religious individuals that their choices that they make for themselves are stupid or should be outlawed.

That being said, I'm not opposed to some generalized ordinance or something that mandates people either go home and self-isolate after attending religious services or other gatherings, or get tested to make sure they didn't get infected. I see no reason for why something like this couldn't be done, and I see no reason for amending or trashing the US Constitution to deal with a pandemic, either.

The problem is that a contagion is contagious. So we don't get to endanger the lives of others by simply choosing to ignore the rules put in place to try and protect us all from that. Nor do we get to do that simply because we don't agree with the rules, or we think God says we can do whatever we want, or He wants. Religion NEVER usurped the rule of law via the Constitution.

 

[anotherneil]

The problem is that a contagion is contagious. So we don't get to endanger the lives of others by simply choosing to ignore the rules put in place to try and protect us all from that. Nor do we get to do that simply because we don't agree with the rules, or we think God says we can do whatever we want, or He wants. Religion NEVER usurped the rule of law via the Constitution.

Yes, I agree. What I'm saying is no different from saying that a restaurant employee is free to use the restroom, but once they're done they have to wash their hands before they get back to work.