The people are certainly free to assemble. If they choose to do so and acclaim
the supremacy of the flying spaghetti monster, so be it. Just
don't ask me to accept their beliefs, nor codify them, nor tolerate them.
Very good responses. The hypocrisy is explicit!
@Scientist makes good points.Religion can offer opinions and create
voting blocs... as can the local Farmers Cooperative, the "People who want a
better America", "Teachers for Students" and other organizations
covered by our freedoms.Religions have the same power as Physicians
seeking to improve health for children.As it should be.
To "A Scientist" the freedom of association is what is meant by "the
right of the people peaceably to assemble". The government can't
restrict who you peaceably assemble with, that is also known as freedom of
assembly.Now, a church can request things of the government also
under the 1st amendment. You see, it says that people (a church is a group of
people) can "petition the government for a redress of grievances."Now, since you claim to be a scientist, lets look at this. If there is a
separation between church and state, why can the state interfere with religion?
You claim they should be separate yet the government is constantly interfering
@A Scientist: "freedom of association" is not mentioned anywhere in the
Constitution! "The right of the people to peaceably assemble is,
as are the "free exercise" of religion, freedom of speech, and the right
of the people to petition government for redress of grievance.To
wit:"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."Rather
than quibbling over how freedom of assembly is materially different than freedom
of association, please explain how anyone or any peaceful assembly can be
prohibited from using their speech, press, or petition rights simply because you
think their desired views are too religious in nature?It is notable
that the "free exercise" of religion is explicitly protected while some
mythical "freedom from religion" is not protected. Neither is the
"free exercise of secular behavior that is hostile to religion"
expressly protected. Much as it galls anti-theists, religion enjoys a
constitutionally protected position in our nation.
A Scientist"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": If that doesn't scream freedom of
association, I don't know what does.I sympathize with your
frustration of church meddling in State (certainly in Utah). But to be anti
freedom of association is B A N A N A S......Bananas!
A Scientist: The Constitution spells out what the government can/ cannot
do. It specifically says all else is for the states and the people to
decide. Religion is in there twice: The first says
that no religious test will be required for someone in government. (eg Violated
by a Democrat asking a Trump nominee if he believed in God)The
second says the government will not establish a church. Like the Church of
England -- or like Portugals former Roman Catholic Church only laws.
Just how does that translate to censoring discussion of religion/ principles/
standards in the public square?
Let's pull a conservative trick: the "freedom of association" is
not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution!So, now tell me again
where "freedom from religion" or "the separation of Church and
State" are not found in the Constitution?! -- and try to justify your
religion meddling in government...