Religious Freedom

[glen smith]

Circumstances and what Lou posted below got me thinking about the high value most Americans place on the concept of freedom of religion. In this post and maybe in some subsequent ones, I would like to challenge our idealism about freedom of religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lou posted
Thanks for posting this Glen. I read about this some time ago but failed to post about it; but I should have done so.

Spiritually the JW are a very dangerous group, for they teach people to reject the only way to eternal life. But for a government to make a law like this is against the free choice of one's belief; and therefore very dangerous. For if they can rule against the JW, they can also rule against true Christianity.

But I think it is certainly OK for any government to make a law like this against Islam. For Islam itself is against the freedom of free choice of one's beliefs. Islam supports Sharia law and Sharia law states that anyone who leaves the Muslim faith should be killed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Freedom in the USA

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.

Background:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Article VI is the prohibition on religious tests as a condition for holding public office. The First Amendment was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Colonial founders such as Roger Williams, William Penn and later founding fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. This is also part of a Supreme Court decision.

Possible Issues:

When the States voted to add the Bill of Rights was it consider that “the free exercise” of religion could mean what modern Americans hold it to mean? Consider this about the free freedom of speech and then compare that to that “the free exercise” of religion.

The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article:

"I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath. Others, long before justice Stevens, have observed that "“the"” indicates the protection of only the culturally acceptable speech of the time.

Might the “the” in “the free exercise” of religion also mean that only a specified cultural norm was intended to be protected?

Early History under “the free exercise” of religion:

Following is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo..._United_States

Example 1:

With the concept of plural marriage, from 1830 to 1890 the Mormon faith allowed its members to practice polygamy; after 1843 this was limited to polygyny (one man could have several wives). The notion of polygamy was not only generally disdained by most of Joseph Smith's contemporaries; it is also contrary to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage. After 1844 the United States government passed legislation aimed specifically at the Mormon practice of polygamy until The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) officially renounced it. In the case of Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that "religious duty" was not a suitable defense to an indictment for polygamy; therefore, a law against polygamy is not legally considered to discriminate against a religion that endorses polygamy. When their appeals to the courts and lawmakers were exhausted and once church leaders were satisfied that God had accepted what they saw as their sacrifice for the principle, the prophet leader of the church announced that he had received inspiration that God had accepted their obedience and rescinded the commandment for plural marriage. In 1890, an official declaration was issued by the church prohibiting further plural marriages. Utah was admitted to the Union on January 4, 1896 only after and because of prohibiting polygyny.

The example demonstrates the meaning of “the free exercise” of religion had some ideological limits. The federal government continues to this day to prosecute polygyny. However, the federal government does not prosecute Catholic priests who are denied the right to marry. Furthermore, the Federal government has redefined marriage to include unions between two people of the same sex. When will the “the free exercise” of religion allow Mormons to practice their historic faith even though it be a short history?

Example 2:

Until the Freedom of Religion Act 1978, "spiritual leaders [of Native Americans] ran the risk of jail sentences of up to 30 years for simply practicing their rituals." The traditional indigenous Sun Dance was illegal from the 1880s (Canada) or 1904 (USA) to the 1980s.

To Americanize the native American their children were forcibly sent to Christian missionary schools where they learned English and Christianity. Obviously, “the free exercise” of religion was not intended to protect the practice of native American religion.

Example 3:

Lest the reader suspects that all the “ignoring” or the different understanding of “the free exercise” of religion was way back in the 19^th century, here is an ongoing example.

Since the 1940s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have often invoked the First Amendment's freedom of religion clauses to protect their ability to engage in the proselytizing (or preaching) that is central to their faith. This series of litigation has helped to define civil liberties case law in the United States and Canada.

In the United States of America and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech. In the United States, many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. Of the 72 cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses that have been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of them 47 times. Even the cases that the Jehovah's Witnesses lost helped the U.S. to more clearly define the limits of First Amendment rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." "Like it or not," observed American author and editor Irving Dilliard, "Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group."
Professor C. S. Braden wrote: "They have performed a signal service to democracy by their fight to preserve their civil rights, for in their struggle they have done much to secure those rights for every minority group in America."
"The cases that the Witnesses were involved in formed the bedrock of 1st Amendment protections for all citizens," said Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who argued the Watchtower Society's case before the Supreme Court in February 2002. "These cases were a good vehicle for the courts to address the protections that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system.

Before the Jehovah’s Witnesses brought several dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1930s and 1940s, the Court had handled few cases contesting laws that restricted freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Until then, the First Amendment had only been applied to Congress and the federal government.
However, the cases brought before the Court by the Jehovah's Witnesses allowed the Court to consider a range of issues: mandatory flag salute, sedition, free speech, literature distribution and military draft law. These cases proved to be pivotal moments in the formation of constitutional law. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ court victories have strengthened rights including the protection of religious conduct from federal and state interference, the right to abstain from patriotic rituals and military service and the right to engage in public discourse.

During the World War II era, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses in several landmark cases that helped pave the way for the modern civil rights movement. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.

Conclusion:

It is impossible to defend “the free exercise” of religion was originally understood as the U.S Supreme Court has now determined the meaning. However, as in Catholicism, the Bible means what the pope says it means, so it is with the U.S, Constitution, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Modern Americans and others have idealized the meaning of “the free exercise” of religion as having the utmost value. This post is to demonstrate that this idealized version is not what the federal government or Americans thought originally about the First Amendment concerning “the free exercise” of religion. "The free exercise" of religion has now come to this idealized, liberal version through the evolving changes over decades in the decisions of the Supreme Court justices.

One issue of this evolving conundrums of "the free exercise" of religion is demonstrated in the post above by Lou. He sees both the alarming precedent of suppressing the practice of religion by the Russia court ruling that the JW are an extremest group and the problem with Islam being allowed "the free exercise" of religion.

If I post again on this subject it would be to detail what is meant by an
idealized meaning of “"the free exercise”" of religion,
it having the utmost value,
and its consequences politically and spiritually.

Post script:
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

Priest-ridden people is a reference to Catholics.

[Baruch]

The Wikipedia article is mostly lies. I don't know how to say this without being blunt. So I apologize for my bluntness. :)

In the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Jefferson wrote his concerns already, so soon after the formation of the confederacy, about a Governor, the Congress, and the President issuing decrees and passing legislature (to export foreigners, called "friendly strangers", on mere suspicion of seditious design, if I recall correctly) that endangered freedoms, as these policies would be eventually turned against the people. As he put it, people "being, by this precedent, reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority of Congress." Early the federal government, and even state governments, were showing they were unruly beasts. Public offices sought by too many men of greedy design, for personal gain; as well as agents of the British Crown and Rome working to get our people back under their subjugation. Government was already seeking to protect its accumulated power from the sovereign people that created it. It is breach of trust, it is fraud, it is treasonous. The government was appointed trustee, to protect our freedoms and property: not to usurp authority and steal from us.

Jefferson also has this to say about the spirit of the Constitution, "it would be a dangerous delusion, were a confidence in the men of our choice, to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the alien and sedition-acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what the government is if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have conferred on the President, and the President of our choice has assented to and accepted, over the friendly strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our country and its laws had pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President, than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief, by the chains of the Constitution."

The Bill of Rights was a reinforcing clarification to the federal government to provide clear examples of what was eloquently declared in the Declaration of Independence, so that the federal government would have a clear notion of where the barrier is. The original Constitution for the united States of America (sic) was a binding contract on the federal government and congress, limiting its power.

"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."

Congress does not establish or govern the people's religion. The people do. Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of the people establishing religion among themselves. The people are the sovereigns, they created government and Congress to serve them in a limited capacity. This relationship is made very clear.

There are constraints placed on freedoms by the state Constitutions and the general law, at Common Law. The sovereign people created the government, and the sovereign people create the law. The officials have the power to do nothing except within the limits of their office.

At present this land has no access to Common Law. We only have access to forms of martial law and commercial law, in Maritime Admiralty courts. This situation came about around the time of the Lincoln presidency, when the federal company filed bankruptcy, and quietly went into reorg, incorporated under the British Crown, using a subtly modified copy of the original Constitution as its corporate charter. This practice has continued since then, slowly transforming our system of law from Common Law to commercial/corporate law. The last of the Common Law offices were closed in the 1960's. Many layers of fraud have been laid down. The net effect and purpose was to enslave us and steal our land and labor.

So when Wikipedia writes: legal, civil liberties, citizens, Constitution; it is within the paradigm of the corporate "nation". The founders wrote at great length and pains to refute any suggestion or notion that the federal union was a nation; that nations imply sovereignty, and authority, and a power over the people. The United States is not a nation, and never was. We are merely fooled. The original Constitution was unlawfully suspended by Lincoln, and we have been managed under martial law since the so-called Civil War.

Common Law is still lawful. It is just not being exercised. We may reopen Common Law offices and fill them whenever we want, and the Maritime Admiralty courts in the counties where Common Law courts exists must vacate - Ex parte Milligan, US Supreme Court case 1866. We do not need the permission of a corporation, even the big brother United States, to self-govern. They have only the power of their legal presumptions.

I'm unable to discuss subjects such as civil rights, patriotism, "obeying the law" (legal=color of law, not law), national security, etc. in the same vein as most people understand it. We've been hoodwinked for generations by a massive foreign conspiracy, and the fiction is so thorough and skillful it is very hard for us to break out of it. So forgive this mountain of text. I hope there is something in here that helps folks shake off some of this delusion in which we're cocooned.

Islam will be my next topic.

[Baruch]

Islam is not a religion. It cannot be protected under the 1st Amendment.

Islam is a foreign government. Its law is Shariah. Shariah includes the religion, and every aspect of life. There is no freedom in Islam, as we understand and love freedom.

Islam is antithetical to the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution.

Islam is not a religion. Muslims are not permitted to take the religion and leave Shariah. Anyone who professes or practices such is considered apostate. Shariah and the religion are inseparable.

Thus, there are no moderate Muslims. There are three categories: faithful Muslims; unfaithful Muslims, who are currently not practicing but who may be restored; and there are apostates, who bring dishonor and are to be killed. There is no wiggle room.

While Islam apologists seek to boast of their tolerance towards Islam, some judges have lost their marbles and made judgements in US courts based on foreign law; e.g. they judged cases between husband and wife based on Shariah, "it's my religion and this is a land of religious freedom". We have to be able to divide this properly, or we will be hoodwinked by both crafty people and stupid people.

[Baruch]

I also want to comment on satanism, because they are coming out of the closet and armed to the teeth with legal tactics, and Satan having positioned his own priests in every station of business and government. Thus we see the escalating war on Christianity, cast as "separation of church and state".

This is how the ideal of the 1st Amendment was twisted. It was intended to prevent a power hungry government from establishing a state religion. Men had had enough of sacralism: the confluence of church and state. In a recent post we kicked around the Reformers, Luther and Calvin. They are, in my opinion, unjustly judged by our standards. They were greatly influenced by sacralism, even by Rome, that abomination which they hated. Sacralism was still widely practiced in their day - perhaps because it was deemed the effective way to combat Rome's militancy. Many are quick to point out the taint of sacralism, and then conclude that all or part of their theology must be thrown out. We have a visceral reaction to sacralism, I get that. So do I. The 1st Amendment declares it forbidden on our land.

The 1st Amendment does not, however, declare that men and women are required to scrub all traces of religious expression while on "public property", in "public office", teaching school children, and in making decisions. This is a twisted liberal interpretation, and a frankly ludicrous notion. No one, not even atheists, can compartmentalize their religion.

Satantists would and will, however, hold everyone to this standard if possible, while practicing their craft to full effect in those same capacities.

Satanists follow no law. Each is a law unto himself, he is his own god. Would a lawless people be antithetical to a lawful people?

This is a very slippery problem if we adhere to the letter and not the spirit. The letter is legal, this is Satan's playground.

Contracts and oaths, binding each other with words, when our word should be our bond: yea or nay; seeking legal holes to get out of obligations. It is evil. And that is our present form of government. It is not the form of government we are owed, that form of government created by the founding fathers. So those in power, and political action groups seeking power, robbing us of our heritage, and seeking to exploit the present legal system of contract law to kill the voice of the established religion that caused this land to prosper, should not be given a foothold, let alone protections. It is also a very good reason to start coming out of the fog of illusion that the United States is our government; rather, it is someone else's government, and the perps have legally entrapped us under commerce. Legal is not lawful.

[Lou Newton]

Islam is not a religion. It cannot be protected under the 1st Amendment.

Islam is a foreign government. Its law is Shariah. Shariah includes the religion, and every aspect of life. There is no freedom in Islam, as we understand and love freedom.

Islam is antithetical to the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution.

Islam is not a religion. Muslims are not permitted to take the religion and leave Shariah. Anyone who professes or practices such is considered apostate. Shariah and the religion are inseparable.

Thus, there are no moderate Muslims. There are three categories: faithful Muslims; unfaithful Muslims, who are currently not practicing but who may be restored; and there are apostates, who bring dishonor and are to be killed. There is no wiggle room.

While Islam apologists seek to boast of their tolerance towards Islam, some judges have lost their marbles and made judgements in US courts based on foreign law; e.g. they judged cases between husband and wife based on Shariah, "it's my religion and this is a land of religious freedom". We have to be able to divide this properly, or we will be hoodwinked by both crafty people and stupid people.

Islam claims to have the right to freedom of religion in the US, WHILE ISLAM TAKES AWAY ALL FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Our US Constitution forbids the entry of anyone who wants to destroy our Republic. Sharia law states our Republic must be destroyed, along with the Constitution, and Sharia law put in their place. It is against the laws of this land to allow entry to any one who believes in Islam.

[glen smith]

The Wikipedia article is mostly lies. I don't know how to say this without being blunt. So I apologize for my bluntness. :)

In the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Jefferson wrote his concerns already, so soon after the formation of the confederacy, about a Governor, the Congress, and the President issuing decrees and passing legislature (to export foreigners, called "friendly strangers", on mere suspicion of seditious design, if I recall correctly) that endangered freedoms, as these policies would be eventually turned against the people. As he put it, people "being, by this precedent, reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority of Congress." Early the federal government, and even state governments, were showing they were unruly beasts. Public offices sought by too many men of greedy design, for personal gain; as well as agents of the British Crown and Rome working to get our people back under their subjugation. Government was already seeking to protect its accumulated power from the sovereign people that created it. It is breach of trust, it is fraud, it is treasonous. The government was appointed trustee, to protect our freedoms and property: not to usurp authority and steal from us.

Jefferson also has this to say about the spirit of the Constitution, "it would be a dangerous delusion, were a confidence in the men of our choice, to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the alien and sedition-acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what the government is if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have conferred on the President, and the President of our choice has assented to and accepted, over the friendly strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our country and its laws had pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President, than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief, by the chains of the Constitution."

The Bill of Rights was a reinforcing clarification to the federal government to provide clear examples of what was eloquently declared in the Declaration of Independence, so that the federal government would have a clear notion of where the barrier is. The original Constitution for the united States of America (sic) was a binding contract on the federal government and congress, limiting its power.

"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."

Congress does not establish or govern the people's religion. The people do. Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of the people establishing religion among themselves. The people are the sovereigns, they created government and Congress to serve them in a limited capacity. This relationship is made very clear.

There are constraints placed on freedoms by the state Constitutions and the general law, at Common Law. The sovereign people created the government, and the sovereign people create the law. The officials have the power to do nothing except within the limits of their office.

At present this land has no access to Common Law. We only have access to forms of martial law and commercial law, in Maritime Admiralty courts. This situation came about around the time of the Lincoln presidency, when the federal company filed bankruptcy, and quietly went into reorg, incorporated under the British Crown, using a subtly modified copy of the original Constitution as its corporate charter. This practice has continued since then, slowly transforming our system of law from Common Law to commercial/corporate law. The last of the Common Law offices were closed in the 1960's. Many layers of fraud have been laid down. The net effect and purpose was to enslave us and steal our land and labor.

So when Wikipedia writes: legal, civil liberties, citizens, Constitution; it is within the paradigm of the corporate "nation". The founders wrote at great length and pains to refute any suggestion or notion that the federal union was a nation; that nations imply sovereignty, and authority, and a power over the people. The United States is not a nation, and never was. We are merely fooled. The original Constitution was unlawfully suspended by Lincoln, and we have been managed under martial law since the so-called Civil War.

Common Law is still lawful. It is just not being exercised. We may reopen Common Law offices and fill them whenever we want, and the Maritime Admiralty courts in the counties where Common Law courts exists must vacate - Ex parte Milligan, US Supreme Court case 1866. We do not need the permission of a corporation, even the big brother United States, to self-govern. They have only the power of their legal presumptions.

I'm unable to discuss subjects such as civil rights, patriotism, "obeying the law" (legal=color of law, not law), national security, etc. in the same vein as most people understand it. We've been hoodwinked for generations by a massive foreign conspiracy, and the fiction is so thorough and skillful it is very hard for us to break out of it. So forgive this mountain of text. I hope there is something in here that helps folks shake off some of this delusion in which we're cocooned.

Islam will be my next topic.

Baruch, way to go! Excellent post. Glad to touch your hot button.
You opened up other adjacent issues . . . but about the one issue I posted as follows:

I would like to challenge our idealism about freedom of religion.
or
My post contended modern Americans have an idealized meaning of “"the free exercise"” of religion, . . . that idealized meaning being different from what the founding fathers intended.

If I read your post correctly (read it once) you make the opposite point from my post. Your post contends the original intent of the founding fathers was for the ideas of religious freedom are as now defined in the Supreme Court decisions.

If you have the references for the info you provided I would appreciate that.
I will study your post more intently when I have the time on Thursday.

I really appreciate your post countering the prospect of the one I presented.
It is not what I was seeking, but I am interested in the facts.

About your next post:
You said, “Islam is not a religion. It cannot be protected under the 1st Amendment.” . . . . and you gave your reason about Islamic law defining Islam a government.

I am uncertain how much of this continues today, but since traditional Roman Catholics employ RC Church law over civil law does this in your opinion define Catholicism as a government?

Back when the Boston diocese was having all the publicity about homosexual priest abusing altar boys I did not know a devout Roman Catholic who thought these priests ought to be tried in state courts. These Catholics thought the determination of guilt and punishment were matters of the Roman Catholic Church.

Disclosing my tactics:

My post started with, “Circumstances and what Lou posted below got me thinking about the high value most Americans place on the concept of freedom of religion..” - - - the circumstances being Islam.

Searching how the federal government acted through departments and how congress had passed laws and how the early decisions by the courts ruled on “"the free exercise"” of religion - - I conceived the possibility that Islam, in theory, might be brought before the court as an “extremist” organization based simple on the way the First Amendment had been denied as being relevant. Not that such a thing would actually happen today, but that others might view through American history a different idea about "“the free exercise"” of religion where everybody’'s opinions did not count.

[Lou Newton]

Baruch, way to go! Excellent post. Glad to touch your hot button.
You opened up other adjacent issues . . . but about the one issue I posted as follows:

I would like to challenge our idealism about freedom of religion.
or
My post contended modern Americans have an idealized meaning of “"the free exercise"” of religion, . . . that idealized meaning being different from what the founding fathers intended.

If I read your post correctly (read it once) you make the opposite point from my post. Your post contends the original intent of the founding fathers was for the ideas of religious freedom are as now defined in the Supreme Court decisions.

If you have the references for the info you provided I would appreciate that.
I will study your post more intently when I have the time on Thursday.

I really appreciate your post countering the prospect of the one I presented.
It is not what I was seeking, but I am interested in the facts.

About your next post:
You said, “Islam is not a religion. It cannot be protected under the 1st Amendment.” . . . . and you gave your reason about Islamic law defining Islam a government.

I am uncertain how much of this continues today, but since traditional Roman Catholics employ RC Church law over civil law does this in your opinion define Catholicism as a government?

Back when the Boston diocese was having all the publicity about homosexual priest abusing altar boys I did not know a devout Roman Catholic who thought these priests ought to be tried in state courts. These Catholics thought the determination of guilt and punishment were matters of the Roman Catholic Church.

Disclosing my tactics:

My post started with, “Circumstances and what Lou posted below got me thinking about the high value most Americans place on the concept of freedom of religion..” - - - the circumstances being Islam.

Searching how the federal government acted through departments and how congress had passed laws and how the early decisions by the courts ruled on “"the free exercise"” of religion - - I conceived the possibility that Islam, in theory, might be brought before the court as an “extremist” organization based simple on the way the First Amendment had been denied as being relevant. Not that such a thing would actually happen today, but that others might view through American history a different idea about "“the free exercise"” of religion where everybody’'s opinions did not count.

I can remember when any person who would join the Communist, or Nazis, or Islam would have been persecuted by our legal system. But our last POTUS was a Muslim who bowed to a Muslim religious leader, and taught communist ideals, and even used NAZI tactics in his administration. Instead of being deported, he was elected to the highest office in the land.

In the name of freedom we have elected tyrants.

[Baruch]

Baruch, way to go! Excellent post. Glad to touch your hot button.
You opened up other adjacent issues . . . but about the one issue I posted as follows:

I would like to challenge our idealism about freedom of religion.
or
My post contended modern Americans have an idealized meaning of “"the free exercise"” of religion, . . . that idealized meaning being different from what the founding fathers intended.

If I read your post correctly (read it once) you make the opposite point from my post. Your post contends the original intent of the founding fathers was for the ideas of religious freedom are as now defined in the Supreme Court decisions.

If you have the references for the info you provided I would appreciate that.
I will study your post more intently when I have the time on Thursday.

I really appreciate your post countering the prospect of the one I presented.
It is not what I was seeking, but I am interested in the facts.

About your next post:
You said, “Islam is not a religion. It cannot be protected under the 1st Amendment.” . . . . and you gave your reason about Islamic law defining Islam a government.

I am uncertain how much of this continues today, but since traditional Roman Catholics employ RC Church law over civil law does this in your opinion define Catholicism as a government?

Back when the Boston diocese was having all the publicity about homosexual priest abusing altar boys I did not know a devout Roman Catholic who thought these priests ought to be tried in state courts. These Catholics thought the determination of guilt and punishment were matters of the Roman Catholic Church.

Disclosing my tactics:

My post started with, “Circumstances and what Lou posted below got me thinking about the high value most Americans place on the concept of freedom of religion..” - - - the circumstances being Islam.

Searching how the federal government acted through departments and how congress had passed laws and how the early decisions by the courts ruled on “"the free exercise"” of religion - - I conceived the possibility that Islam, in theory, might be brought before the court as an “extremist” organization based simple on the way the First Amendment had been denied as being relevant. Not that such a thing would actually happen today, but that others might view through American history a different idea about "“the free exercise"” of religion where everybody’'s opinions did not count.

Thanks for the measured reply, Glen. I don't intend to start writing so much, but this is one of those subjects that requires a lot of background just to make a few points:

a) debating about what the four branches of federal govt decides is the wrong problem;
b) Islam is fooling people that it is a religion on the same footing as the bedrock religion of this country;
c) now satanists are fooling people that it is a religion on the same footing as the bedrock religion of this country.

For the history reconstructed I pulled from a number of sources. These are secondary sources, as I don't have the time or money to use primary sources.

"You Know Something Is Wrong When...an affidavit of probable cause" gave me a foundation. It's a very approachable book laying out the 150 years of fraud since the Lincoln presidency. There's a kindle version, and a more expensive paper edition that contains the affidavit that cured in international court. If you know about affidavits, you know once they cure they are a fact in the court record and cannot be disputed. This is a very powerful statement. The great fraud is international, not just waged against America. But America's vast stolen wealth has funded an unfathomable amount of evil conquest globally.

I listened to and read many lectures on the great fraud, banking, commercial law, and Common Law. I read many opinion articles, and some court cases. I wish I could give a list of references from these, but they are so many they are like a river through my mind. A lot of it was like panning for gold, you gotta throw out a lot of common and worthless rocks.

Kim Riddlebarger lectures on Common Law in the context of Christianity. I enjoyed his lectures, but I'm not sure how much I agree with him; simply because most people who teach about government are oblivious to the nature and extent of great fraud which has only been figured out very recently, like around 2013.

Some of the lectures are way, way, way out there. The ones dealing with Rome's spirituality behind its legal system and commercial vehicles. I think we've all heard that Roman Catholicism is steeped in tradition. The popes who built commerce have twisted scriptural themes and applied their tradition to build a caricature of heaven and hell on earth. They are so twisted, I do not know how God can let such a thing exist for hundreds of years; He is very longsuffering, I cannot fathom it, bless His holy name.

"RCC" is a religion, but is joined with the Roman governmental apparatus. We're led to think of it as a church, separated from the secular governance of Rome, but it is separated in appearance only. Similar to Islam, it is a government that incorporates a religion. Its "citizens" are legal fictions (corporations), and it figuratively and literally traffics in the souls of men. The pope wears two hats, one as secular ruler and another as ecclesiastical ruler. They say he is capable of separating the two offices...yeah, right. Additionally, Vatican is a city state and the pope recently made himself king of it; so, three hats? Rome holds the copyright on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is the legal system for incorporation, aka international commerce. All commercial charters of incorporation are bound by UCC. Rome is the mother of all corporations. Roman Curia (Roman Court) is the final arbiter of disputes in commerce, but allows lower jurisdictions to handle lesser disputes. All but a few governments are incorporated now, and their charters are corporate charters, and their laws are bylaws (color of law; legal fiction). That places all governments in commerce; and...get ready...subject to Roman Curia, and even commercial liquidation by Rome when UCC is violated. Rome keeps a light touch on its control, though, apparently playing the servant: he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. It does not want to lose the reins of the beast. Rome cannot stand if all the kings turn on her as one. It uses its legal system to bind the nations, and uses the power of the nations to maintain order.

Regarding the supreme court rulings, anything after the Lincoln incorporation is tainted by fraud. The incorporated Congress, acting on its own expanded powers, passed many acts in a sleazy multi-generational transformation of the Republic into an Oligarchy pretending to be a Democracy. During that long period, though, many judges seem to have judged honestly and in good faith so it is interesting to see how some of the landmark cases ruled in favor of the living man and against the reach of government.

[Baruch]

Searching how the federal government acted through departments and how congress had passed laws and how the early decisions by the courts ruled on “"the free exercise"” of religion - - I conceived the possibility that Islam, in theory, might be brought before the court as an “extremist” organization based simple on the way the First Amendment had been denied as being relevant. Not that such a thing would actually happen today, but that others might view through American history a different idea about "“the free exercise"” of religion where everybody’'s opinions did not count.

It is possible that the Mormon cases you mentioned were judged based on the true spirit of the law. I have a dark view of our shady history, but I fairly admit that many judges and lawyers acted in good faith, in obedience to their conscience, and to the best of their ability. It seems to me that the Smith cult wanted license to commit adultery under the umbrella of religious freedom. Americans were conservative enough and valued godly principles enough to judge clearly: no, adultery is wrong, and on this land thou shalt not commit it. People may break the law and not get caught, and it may be winked at in some cases, but openly the law was clear and it reflected the people's morals. Adultery is not a grey area, just like murder should not be licensed under the umbrella of religious freedom.

Quite a contrast to what goes on today. Murder is permissible when the correct form is used. Adultery is accepted, celebrated, almost nobody is even embarrassed by it. Almost all judges are working to build fat retirement funds, and they don't care who they harm. I could keep going, but I won't weary you all.

If Islam gets 1st Amendment protection, that is the foot in the door for Shariah. It is not the only way, but it would be a big win. One could argue from the Moderate perspective. But moderates can be radicalized by proven tactics. If I were judging: it is impossible to distinguish the religion of Islam from Shariah, because Muslims don't distinguish; how could we possibly give such a thing 1st Amendment protection?

Roman Catholicism is, for many people, a Christian sect. And I dare venture that there are Roman Catholics who are saved. But we know that is in spite of RCC, not because of. Only our Lord Jesus saves. Rome's commercial web is a very insidious parasite, however. Direct foreign influence from Rome and elsewhere is causing harm in this country that will continue until we break all contracts and return to the last known good state of self-governing.

[Baruch]

I can remember when any person who would join the Communist, or Nazis, or Islam would have been persecuted by our legal system. But our last POTUS was a Muslim who bowed to a Muslim religious leader, and taught communist ideals, and even used NAZI tactics in his administration. Instead of being deported, he was elected to the highest office in the land.

In the name of freedom we have elected tyrants.

That's interesting, isn't it, Lou? Those were the spawn of the sedition-acts that Jefferson wrote about. The change that you're seeing--commies and Nazis were bad, but now they're good--is a product of social engineering. People's views and opinions are modified by what they see and experience. Wars, TV, movies, news and documentaries: the propaganda machine. Who pushed for this LGBT thing that's taking our country by storm? The government, using its propaganda machine. The oligarchs decide how the chess pieces need to be arranged years in advance, and then apply the social pressures (mind control) to drive the herd towards it. And then we cry out for them to enact the thing they set up. They use the sedition-acts against us, just as Jefferson said they would.

[Baruch]

Sorry, Glen. I dragged your thing way off topic. Alas, we seem to do that here. You've noticed.

[glen smith]

Sorry, Glen. I dragged your thing way off topic. Alas, we seem to do that here. You've noticed.

Dragged you did! However, it seems that it matters little if one is discussing freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press since each receive protection of some form under the First Amendment and what might be said of one might be said of the other. Because you have posted the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, I am seeking to provide the context and summary. Hope this is beneficial to everybody. Three separate posts so the text is not so long and each subject is its own post.

Historical background to the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798
US Public Opinion

Public opposition to President John Adams and the Federalists was sponsored by Democratic-Republicans. Public opposition reached new heights with the Democratic-Republicans' support of the French Republic. Public attitudes were increasing in the United States for an event similar to the French Revolution, in order to overthrow the Federalist Party government. When Democratic-Republicans in some states refused to enforce federal laws such as the 1791 whiskey tax, the first tax levied by the national government, and threatened to rebel against the federal government, Federalists warned that they would send in the army to force them to capitulate. As the unrest sweeping Europe spread to the United States, calls for secession reached unparalleled heights, and the fledgling nation seemed ready to tear itself apart. Some of this agitation was seen by Federalists as having been caused by French and French-sympathizing immigrants.The Alien Act and the Sedition Act were meant to guard against this perceived threat of anarchy.

Us Relations with the First Republic of France

The Kingdom of France, a crucial ally of the American colonies in the American Revolutionary War since early 1776, had loaned the US large sums of money, and had signed in 1778 a treaty of alliance with the United States of America against Great Britain. Louis XVI of France fell from power in 1792 during the French Revolution and the French monarchy was abolished. As a result, in 1794 the American government came to an agreement with the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Jay Treaty, that resolved several points of contention between the United States and Great Britain that had lingered after the end of the American Revolutionary War. It also contained economic clauses.

The United States had already declared neutrality in the conflict between Great Britain and French republic, and American legislation was being passed for a trade deal with Britain. When the U.S. refused to continue repaying its debt using the argument that the debt was owed to the previous government, not to the French First Republic, French outrage led to a series of responses. First, French privateers began seizing American ships trading with Britain and bringing them in as prizes to be sold. Next, the French government refused to receive Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the new U.S. Minister, when he arrived in Paris in December 1796.

In his annual message to Congress at the close of 1797, President John Adams reported on France's refusal to negotiate a settlement and spoke of the need "to place our country in a suitable posture of defense." In April 1798, President Adams informed Congress of the "XYZ Affair", in which French agents demanded a large bribe before engaging in substantive negotiations with United States diplomats.

Meanwhile, French privateers inflicted substantial losses on American shipping. On 21 February 1797, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering told Congress that during the previous eleven months, France had seized three hundred and sixteen American merchant ships. French marauders cruised the length of the Atlantic seaboard virtually unopposed. The United States government had nothing to combat them, as the navy had been abolished at the end of the Revolutionary War and its last warship sold in 1785. The United States had only a flotilla of small revenue cutters and a few neglected coastal forts.

Congress rescinded the treaties with France on 7 July 1798. That date is now considered the beginning of the Quasi-War. This was followed two days later with the passage of the Congressional authorization of attacks on French warships in American waters.

Increased depredations by French privateers led to the rebirth of the United States Navy and the creation of the United States Marine Corps to defend the expanding American merchant fleet. Congress authorized the president to acquire, arm, and man not more than twelve ships of up to twenty two guns each. Several freighter were immediately purchased and refitted as ships of war, and construction resumed on the frigate USS Congress and finished in 1799.

The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought almost entirely at sea between the United States of America and the French Republic from 1798 to 1800. After the toppling of the French crown during the French Revolutionary Wars, the United States refused to continue repaying its debt to France on the grounds that it had been owed to a previous regime. French outrage led to a series of attacks on American shipping, ultimately leading to retaliation from the Americans and the end of hostilities with the signing of the Convention of 1800 shortly thereafter.

continued next post

[glen smith]

Alien and Sedition Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798.

1. The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years

2. The Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" at any time, while the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to do the same to any male citizen of a hostile nation above the age of fourteen during times of war.

3. Alien Enemy Act allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens who were from a hostile nation.

4. Sedition Act restricted speech that was critical of the federal government. This Act resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many Jeffersonian newspaper owners who disagreed with the government. and criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government .

The Federalists argued that the bills strengthened national security during an undeclared naval war with France. Critics argued that they were primarily an attempt to suppress voters who disagreed with the Federalist party, and violated the right of freedom of speech in the First Amendment. The acts were denounced by Democratic-Republicans and ultimately helped them to victory in the 1800 election, when Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent, President Adams. The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively.

The Alien Enemies Act remains in effect, was revised and codified in 1918 for use in World War I, and was used by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to imprison Japanese, German, and Italian aliens during World War II. Following cessation of hostilities, the act was used by President Harry S. Truman to continue to imprison, then deport, aliens of the formerly hostile nations. In 1948 the Supreme Court determined that presidential powers under the acts continued after cessation of hostilities until there was a peace treaty with the hostile nation. The Alien Enemies Act remains in effect as Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code.

In 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump made a proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States (as part of the War on Terror); Roosevelt's application of the Alien Enemies Act was cited as a possible justification. The proposal created international controversy, drawing criticism from foreign heads of state that have historically remained uninvolved in United States presidential elections. A former Reagan Administration aide noted that, despite criticism of Trump's proposal to invoke the law, "the Alien Enemies Act... is still on the books... (and people) in Congress for many decades (haven’t) repealed the law... (nor has) Barack Obama".

continued next post

[glen smith]

Summary of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799

The 1798 Kentucky Resolutions was authored by Vice President Thomas Jefferson.
The 1799 Virginia Resolutions was authored by James Madison.

These resolutions were political statements, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional.

The unconstitutional argument follows:

The Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Therefore, the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it. If the federal government assumed such powers, its acts could be declared unconstitutional by the states. So, states could decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
A key provision of the Kentucky Resolutions was Resolution 2, which denied Congress more than a few penal powers by arguing that Congress had no authority to punish crimes other than those specifically named in the Constitution. The Alien and Sedition Acts were asserted to be unconstitutional, and therefore void, because they dealt with crimes not mentioned in the Constitution:

Overall, the resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution.
The Virginia Resolution contemplated joint action by other states.

General disapproval of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799

The resolutions were submitted to the other states for approval, but with no success. Seven states formally responded to Kentucky and Virginia by rejecting the Resolutions and three other states passed resolutions expressing disapproval, with the other four states taking no action. No other state affirmed the resolutions. At least six states responded to the Resolutions by taking the position that the constitutionality of acts of Congress is a question for the federal courts, not the state legislatures.

The Supreme Court rejected the compact theory in several nineteenth century cases, undermining the basis for the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. In cases such as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Texas v. White, the Court asserted that the Constitution was established directly by the people, rather than being a compact among the states. Abraham Lincoln also rejected the compact theory saying the Constitution was a binding contract among the states and no contract can be changed unilaterally by one party.

It seems Abraham Lincoln did not believe some of the decisions by the Supreme Court were in effect changing the binding contract.

end

[Baruch]

Thanks for that tidy summary, Glen.

The federal government had violated its charter. It was not granted the role of protector on the land. It had no business policing sedition, except within its own jurisdiction: i.e. inside the union company, and on the seas around our borders. As an anti-federalist, Jefferson knew this well and rightly called it out. This was a power reserved to the states, which had their own government, militia, and budgets.

Legally/lawfully speaking, Lincoln's words and deeds depend on which side of the line he made them: before or after taking the corporation into an undeclared war (corporations cannot declare, only sovereigns can) against several sovereign nation states of the union.

Any use of the Acts after the incorporation is under color of law, and predicated on fraud. By maxim of law, that makes the predicates null and void, and of no force.

Interesting, that the union refused to pay France after the French Revolution. That was a bad decision, in my opinion. I wasn't there, but on the surface I'd assess that the union owed the French people, not the regime. The debt should have been honored, even if the treaty and other contracts might be renegotiated.

The closing section regarding compact / contract is also very interesting. Despite what we've seen since circa 1790 the federal government is not the arbitrator of what is Constitutional. Congress is charged by the states with insuring the union company adhere to the Constitution. Congress wears two hats: it represents the states, who represent the people, at the federal government while in session; and it represents the federal government to the states while at home. First and foremost Congress represents the people, since the people created the state government, and the states created the federal government. Bottom up governance, as it should be. Feds serve the states, states serve the people, the people serve one another.

Lincoln's rejection of the compact theory was legal sorcery. He was an attorney. The Declaration of Independence disclosed the will of the people, who held it their duty to overthrow any government that wrestled for supremacy. No contract can give away unalienable rights. They are unalienable. Yet the corporate federal government today, and all its territorial and municipal corporate franchises, create and modify unilateral contracts upon its presumed "citizens" as a matter of course, contracts which are undisclosed, and contracts in which there is no consideration (a commercial term). This is undeniable fraud. Who knows this? Certainly the Bar, SCOTUS, banking execs, high level officials and bureaucrats, and the big lobbying corporations that participate in the "revolving door", as well as many state officials and bureaucrats. Perhaps amazingly, it seems Congress is mostly oblivious to this; but Congress is not oblivious to the fact that they no longer serve the people.