| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Civilized Religion: By Orson Scott Card |
| 2007-11-10 |
| On constitution (US), freedom of religion, and Islam So the question is: Does a religion that believes in denying freedom of religion to others deserve the same protection as religions that uphold freedom of religion? It is an established principle of Constitutional law that none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #10 States Rights were effectively repealed by force in 1865. Subsequent Amendments, laws and Supreme Court interpretations further cemented the supremacy of the Federal government on pretty much all issues they wish to claim. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-11-10 20:40 |
| #9 "Congress shall make no laws.." Which makes this a State's rights issue. So in fact any state could ban islam. It might come to that, after we get nuked to please allen. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-11-10 15:03 |
| #8 I'm only a sometimes fan of Orson Scott Card, and this essay is even more rambling and "all over the map" than usual; it borders on incoherent. Nevertheless, he has some good points here, and focusing on his statement that "none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute" misses them (including the sense in which he made that particular statement). And chief among those points is that Islam is not deserving of our Constitutional protections of freedom of religion until it utterly and explicitly abandons its long-held belief that Muslims have the right and duty to kill non-Muslims, including apostates; and until it does so, it is not even deserving of being called a "religion" in America: that it is more like an organized crime syndicate, or a cult. Card believes it is possible to force Islam to abandon this doctrine, at least here in America; he cites the example of the Mormon Church, which was forced to abandon its practice of polygamy. I wish I could share his optimism, but I can't. Regardless, this is a good essay, well worth the reading. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-11-10 11:25 |
| #7 Roe v. Wade came from the supreme court finding unenumerated rights in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution as opposed to the 9th amendment, but the result is the same. I believe the problem is not so much the government trampling on the rights of citizens improperly but arrogating powers that are outside the limits of the powers delegated to them by the Constitution. The commerce clause has been so tortured that it will allow anything but prevent an automobile that is safe in one state from being sold in another. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-10 09:28 |
| #6 It is an established principle of Constitutional law that none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute. Any pole dancer can tell you that's not true. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-10 09:21 |
| #5 The one thing we screw up in the COnstitution is that the modren courts have forgotten then 9th amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Primary among those is the right to self defense, including rejection and sanctions agains tthose who would deny us our INDIVIDUAL rights and liberty to exercise them. This very clearly limits Islam. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-10 09:20 |
| #4 It is an established principle of Constitutional law that none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute. For instance - you can't brandish an M-14 in a crowded theatre and scream MAYONAISE! |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-11-10 09:20 |
| #3 It is an established principle of Constitutional law that none of the rights granted in the Constitution is absolute. There are quite a few |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-11-10 02:46 |
| #2 When the Founding Fathers told that about: 3rthe Congreass will make no law" they were envisonning Christainism or other Golden Rule abiding religions. They were not thinking about say, the Aztec religion. They weren't thinking about Islam, specially wahabism and similar. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-11-10 02:11 |
| #1 In this particular case - when it undermines all of your court, NO. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-11-10 01:04 |