Well, a start would be to have someone who can admit that there are some parameters.
What parameters are listed in the First Amendment?
Much of the success of the Bush Administration and its unprecedented thievery is now open for examination, but an impelling force used to avoid appropriate investigation has been the wearing of the holy mantle of the base Christians.
From everything from watching politicians fold, pundits treading very carefully to posters in political clubs on the internet becoming blank and near appoplexic when the authority of religious concerns in political matters are raised, one can see just how much clout this spun sanctimony possesses, or did possess.
Hopefully, while this administration is dissected legally and discredits and indictments are determined, America will finally become cognizant of how pretentious religious sanctimony can be so successfully utilized by political spin machines.
Let us look at our religions with a fresh, objective eye, ignoring the subtle conditionings that have stultified our thinking by sublimal guilt plants, remembering that while religious freedom is essential, the metaphysics of some of these bumpkin creations are silly beyond the pale, are often nothing more than money scams, and have actively contributed to the divisiveness of this country like no other force.
Not saying they cannot exist--just saying that the mere fact that they claim fame to Jesus does not qualify them to be regarded as gospel.
As I stated in my post, "Not saying they cannot exist . . ."
My point was not that they should be shredded by legal terms.
But your question is here addressed:
"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from governmental interference.
. . .
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferrring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state.(sic ".) Some governmental activcity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transporation for parochial school students and the enforcment of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a BREACH OF THE PEACE or CAUSE VIOLENCE. The righy to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a menssage.
. . .
The right to assemble allows people to gather for PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL PURPOSES. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of associatrion and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. THIS IMPLICIT RIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES ONLY. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that ENGAGE AND PROMOTE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel indiviuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendmentNothing in my post suggested that the government step in. I merely hoped that a new breed of preachers step forth and confront some of the religions who are using faux and quasi-faux tools of their religion to promote one political party over another. There are laws, for instance, that preclude preachers from doing just that, as in the case of providing voting lists.
But they do that.
Some of these preachers can step their way through a legal minefield as well as career criminals.
As I tried to suggest in my post, this task should be accomplished by other preachers who challenge the political involvement of some of their peers.
The case of Tom DeLay is pertinent here. Was he not indicted for using the faith to raise big bucks?
Beyond what the legal establishment now provides for protection of the people from criminal activity in a religion or if legislation does not exist to prohibit specific and timely transgressions regarding specificl legal transgressions, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit establishing new laws addressing these criminal activities which operate under the banner of religion.
I can think of a whole bunch of transgressions accomplished by today's Christian base.
Randall Terry should, for instance, face charges for his rhetoric during the Schaivo Circus (the one where Bill Frist done himself in forever in politics), wherein his remarks could easily disclose calls to violence and calling for ignoring established law.
