• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Insane left-wing extremists to ban goldfish, circumcision

mdram said:
i stand corrected, i always forget the 14th
Click to expand...

Now if a circumcision ban exempting religious ceremonies, it just might pass constitutional muster. This is because the strict scrutiny analysis that it would be subjected to would invalidate a total ban because it would not meet the requirement of being narrowly tailored in a fashion that makes it as least infringing on the free exercise religion as is absolutely necessary for the government to advance its compelling interest (provided that the government can establish one first).
 
No. Any surgery that is not needed on a child that cant make that choice shouldnt be preformed on that child. Its funny how with Muslims people are against the Muslims female circumcision but when you talk about male circumcision many of those same people will say oh well thats ok.

Cosmetic surgery is left up to the individual to make.After all its being done on their body. Like I said no one ever consulted the child it was being done to.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Now if a circumcision ban exempting religious ceremonies, it just might pass constitutional muster. This is because the strict scrutiny analysis that it would be subjected to would invalidate a total ban because it would not meet the requirement of being narrowly tailored in a fashion that makes it as least infringing on the free exercise religion as is absolutely necessary for the government to advance its compelling interest (provided that the government can establish one first).
Click to expand...

government can ban some religious practices, if the are a danger to people, or contradict with other laws, and it does stand up
such as multiple marriage, sacrifices, ect
 
Bob Maxey said:
I live in Utah. We are the major hub of Mormon activity worldwide. Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church and arrived in Utah proclaiming, "This is the Place."

Some will tell you that Utah rises and falls with the whims and desires of the LDS Church. Very true in so far that many leaders are also LDS and they sometimes decide that their way is God's way and make rulings that support the Church. That said, most do not because we are carefully watched and any attempt to write laws that are perhaps questionable, someone is called on the carpet.

The State of Utah was founded by Joseph Smith, also the Founder of the LDS Church. I am not disputing that it must have been difficult if you were not LDS in 1847 or so.

But LDS people paid a price for blindly asserting that they could do anything they wanted to do. The US Government arrived in force and changed a few minds.

But with all that, the LDS Faith is still not a state religion. There are no laws on the books that say Mormonism is the official state church because that is clearly unconstitutional. Not one single state has any official religion because that is unquestionably unconstitutional, as it must be.

That is not to say that in some places, kiss your aspirations good by if you are not a Catholic. Still not sanctioned by the Church and definitely not a state religion.

So tell me which states have an officially sanctioned religion. Do not tell me about states where a predominant religion is considered the defacto "state" religion, but a state that has an official state religion. And please, not some old examples from early in our founding, but current states with a official state church.
Click to expand...

Your history is off there Bob, Joseph Smith was killed in a mob riot in 1844....Brigham Young founded Utah and took the LDS Church west....
 
mdram said:
government can ban some religious practices, if the are a danger to people, or contradict with other laws, and it does stand up
such as multiple marriage, sacrifices, ect
Click to expand...

Animal sacrifice:
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The compelling government interest would be that it harms other people. That's what you're arguing, is it? Contradicting with other laws isn't a compelling interest.

That's not the only thing the government needs to prove to survive strict scrutiny though.

They must also provide that the law banning a religious practice is narrowly tailored, which means that it advances the government's interest in a way that is the least infringing on religion that is necessary.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Animal sacrifice:
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The compelling government interest would be that it harms other people. That's what you're arguing, is it? Contradicting with other laws isn't a compelling interest.

That's not the only thing the government needs to prove to survive strict scrutiny though.

They must also provide that the law banning a religious practice is narrowly tailored, which means that it advances the government's interest in a way that is the least infringing on religion that is necessary.
Click to expand...


as i said in other places i belive in in little gov interference as possible

i don't really agree with the government banning anything, but they can do it, and have. if they just ban something, why should religions get an exemption? things are either legal or not, no grey area should exist

heck the constitution say i can keep and bear arms, but getting a permit in many states is impossible
so im going to start a religion that requires me to carry a gun 24/7
can i claim religious freedom?
 
Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice.
Click to expand...

polygamy doenst hurt anyone and is part of a religion but it is still against the law by the US government.
 
mdram said:
as i said in other places i belive in in little gov interference as possible

i don't really agree with the government banning anything, but they can do it, and have. if they just ban something, why should religions get an exemption? things are either legal or not, no grey area should exist

heck the constitution say i can keep and bear arms, but getting a permit in many states is impossible
so im going to start a religion that requires me to carry a gun 24/7
can i claim religious freedom?
Click to expand...

You could possibly win that case. The Church of Scientology is relatively new, and it has won cases in court. The thing is, the Court has already ruled that the government cannot outright ban firearms, but they can be regulated. Animal sacrifice, circumcision, hell, even the wine that Catholic's sip at Mass are regulated by the government. Requiring you to get a permit is different than outright saying you can't have a firearm at all.

Here's the case I'm talking about in case you're interested:
McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Dark Jedi said:
Thats what I say. Heck I dont even want the one I have lol. Guess thats why we are separated :D
Click to expand...

In this day and age of marriage equality, the polygamy issue will likely be revisited sometime in my lifetime (I'm 21). A case from 1879 is long overdue for revisiting. Old cases are overturned constantly.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
In this day and age of marriage equality, the polygamy issue will likely be revisited sometime in my lifetime (I'm 21). A case from 1879 is long overdue for revisiting. Old cases are overturned constantly.
Click to expand...
But to this day polygamy is still against the law and doubt that law will ever change as this country believes a man should have one wife. So it shows the govenment can limit what a religion can and can not do. So if they can outlaw polygamy that the mormons say is part of their religion. Then the government can outlaw circumcisions.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
You could possibly win that case. The Church of Scientology is relatively new, and it has won cases in court. The thing is, the Court has already ruled that the government cannot outright ban firearms, but they can be regulated. Animal sacrifice, circumcision, hell, even the wine that Catholic's sip at Mass are regulated by the government. Requiring you to get a permit is different than outright saying you can't have a firearm at all.

Here's the case I'm talking about in case you're interested:
McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


aaahhh, that covers ownership, not carry
i want to have one on my person
some places to not allow that
 
mdram said:
and yet go to ny, mass, others and get arrested for thinking about carrying
Click to expand...
Oh I remember NY as I was stationed there. When I found out what you had to go through to just get a permit to own a handgun. I was like WOW now thats strict. Why I dont live in NY.
 
mdram said:
aaahhh, that covers ownership, not carry
i want to have one on my person
some places to not allow that
Click to expand...

Here in California, we allow carry if you have a permit. The permits are hard to get in the more liberal counties, but can be relatively easy to get in the more conservative counties. In Santa Clara County, I was denied. I then moved to Butte County for college, and got a concealed carry permit that also covers open carry.

If you argue your case as a 2nd Amendment case, you would lose because the state can regulate firearms. If you argued it as a Free Exercise case, I honestly have no idea what would happen.
 
Dark Jedi said:
Oh I remember NY as I was stationed there. When I found out what you had to go through to just get a permit to own a handgun. I was like WOW now thats strict. Why I dont live in NY.
Click to expand...

i live on the md/va line
in va i can open carry with no issue

in md i need to show a just cause to be able to carry, then its still almost impossible
 
I live in VA. THey are talking or I think it passed where you can carry in a bar just like AZ.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
A medical procedure need not have a medical benefit for a person to get it. Circumcison is a key tenent of the Jewish faith, and that alone makes it worthy of protection. Cosmetic surgery is stil surgery and is not illegal, and that includes circumcision.
Click to expand...

That point is key in this discussion. It is not like the Jews just thought this one up, it has been part of their religion for a very, very long time. The question I have is this: does it do harm? If not, it is really not my business.

I think there are too many non-Jewish people discussing something they do not understand, myself included.
 
I understand that I am missing part of my genitalia that I never consented to getting rid of. That is enough of an understanding for me.
 
Bob Maxey said:
That point is key in this discussion. It is not like the Jews just thought this one up, it has been part of their religion for a very, very long time. The question I have is this: does it do harm? If not, it is really not my business.

I think there are too many non-Jewish people discussing something they do not understand, myself included.
Click to expand...

All that I know is a Jewish religious procedure was done on me and I'm not jewish. I doubt the Jewish church can tell you why they perform the act.
 
Dark Jedi said:
All that I know is a Jewish religious procedure was done on me and I'm not jewish. I doubt the Jewish church can tell you why they perform the act.
Click to expand...
;) there is no Jewish "church", and yes most jews can tell you. it is a requirement from god himself as a mark of the covenant abraham made with god. Most jews are well aware of what a Bris is.
 
Dark Jedi said:
All that I know is a Jewish religious procedure was done on me and I'm not jewish. I doubt the Jewish church can tell you why they perform the act.
Click to expand...

The Jewish faith performs circumcision because it was mandated by God as a symbol of His covenant with Abraham. All Jewish boys must be circumcised when they are 8 days old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom