Joyful Noise: Religious Freedom Restoration

[rangerrebew]

Joyful Noise: Religious Freedom Restoration
 
by Anne Schlafly, Chairman, Eagle Forum

It is time to reclaim our religious freedoms in the public arena! Freedom, including our freedom to worship, is the very heartbeat of America. For the last fifty years, court rulings have placed strict restrictions on the practice of religion. The judiciary had a hostility to religious expression, using the misconception that the state and church were required to be separated.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman that public monies could not be used in religious schools, which had the effect of stopping prayer in public schools. The three-prong “Lemon Test” stipulated that any law must:

Have a secular, non-religious purpose.

Its primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion.

It must not create excessive entanglement between the government and religion.

We have reaped the whirlwind of the last fifty years when our government removed God from the public square. The result of the courts’ cancelling the public expression of faith has been fifty years of worshiping the state instead of worshiping God.

https://eagleforum.org/publications/efr/nov2025/joyful-noise-religious-freedom-restoration.html

[Kamaji]

I’d be very careful about one asks for in this regard.  Do we want the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast on the school PA system all day?

This is the proverbial camels nose in that tent.

[mountaineer]

I’d be very careful about one asks for in this regard.  Do we want the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast on the school PA system all day?
This is the proverbial camels nose in that tent.

Quite true.

[libertybele]

I’d be very careful about one asks for in this regard.  Do we want the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast on the school PA system all day?

This is the proverbial camels nose in that tent.

Indeed

[roamer_1]

I’d be very careful about one asks for in this regard.  Do we want the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast on the school PA system all day?

This is the proverbial camels nose in that tent.

That goes both directions... It's been decades since I have heard church bells on Sunday morning. And that's a damn cryin shame.

My brother called me on speakerphone from New Orleans just so I could hear the church bells going off. I dang near cried.

[Kamaji]

That goes both directions... It's been decades since I have heard church bells on Sunday morning. And that's a damn cryin shame.

My brother called me on speakerphone from New Orleans just so I could hear the church bells going off. I dang near cried.

Are you willing to have church bells and the muezzin's call to the faithful - five times a day - at the same time?

[roamer_1]

Are you willing to have church bells and the muezzin's call to the faithful - five times a day - at the same time?

Nope. And that ain't the only way that can be resolved.

[roamer_1]

We're getting our 10 Commandments back in front of the courthouse btw...

Don't expect the Muzzies will get their shit there either.

[libertybele]

That goes both directions... It's been decades since I have heard church bells on Sunday morning. And that's a damn cryin shame.

My brother called me on speakerphone from New Orleans just so I could hear the church bells going off. I dang near cried.

That is a cryin shame -- I can't remember the last time I heard church bells; probably when I was a kid.  Plenty of churches in the area, but I don't think any of them even have bells.

[Kamaji]

Nope. And that ain't the only way that can be resolved.

How else do you propose to resolve the matter?  Killing all the muslims?

[240B]

the adhan of the Muslims is a call to war
they want you to kill
the peaceful bells of a Sunday morning is a calm chime for God
this is how we are so different

[libertybele]

How else do you propose to resolve the matter?  Killing all the muslims?

One word:  DEPORTATION 

[Kamaji]

One word:  DEPORTATION 

Every single person who practices Islam, even those who were born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens?

[roamer_1]

How else do you propose to resolve the matter?  Killing all the muslims?

No. Go to Dearborn. I betcha you'll hear em holler, just fine. Same in Detroit, at least for a while, btw.

But no church bells, almost anywhere. That should tell you something.

[libertybele]

Every single person who practices Islam, even those who were born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens?

 

It is estimated by the Center for Immigration studies that 10% of muslims are here illegally.  That is based on 2020 stats and the muslim population is estimated to be about 4.5 million, that is also according to 2020 stats.  So ..... Houston, we have a problem!

[Kamaji]

It is estimated by the Center for Immigration studies that 10% of muslims are here illegally.  That is based on 2020 stats and the muslim population is estimated to be about 4.5 million, that is also according to 2020 stats.  So ..... Houston, we have a problem!

Nice way to not answer the question.  Are you implying that you would remove American-born US citizens whose parents were also U.S. citizens simply because they are Muslims?

[Kamaji]

No. Go to Dearborn. I betcha you'll hear em holler, just fine. Same in Detroit, at least for a while, btw.

But no church bells, almost anywhere. That should tell you something.

Doesn’t answer the question. 

[roamer_1]

Doesn’t answer the question.

But it does. The religion that Congress and SCOTUS is writing into federal law is Secularism.

There is no moral neutral. It does not exist. And that is your answer.

[bigheadfred]

Every single person who practices Islam, even those who were born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens?

Every. Single. One

[Kamaji]

But it does. The religion that Congress and SCOTUS is writing into federal law is Secularism.

There is no moral neutral. It does not exist. And that is your answer.

No, it doesn't answer the question.  And no, the Constitution does not enact, or privilege, any religion.  That was the essence of Jefferson.

If you allow Christian church bells, then you allow the muslim call to prayer.  Or not to both.  The government does not get to pick and choose.

[Kamaji]

Every. Single. One

Ok.  So you're a fascist.  Good to know.

[roamer_1]

No, it doesn't answer the question.  And no, the Constitution does not enact, or privilege, any religion.  That was the essence of Jefferson.

If you allow Christian church bells, then you allow the muslim call to prayer.  Or not to both.  The government does not get to pick and choose.

No, that is the secularist answer. And it is wrong.

A state can declare religion protected or not (as they have done all along). And a locality - if the Muzzies in Dearborn control the town and want that wailing, then so be it.

But where Christians want church bells, they ought to have em.
The secularists should not be able to shut them up, like they did here.

[Kamaji]

No, that is the secularist answer. And it is wrong.

A state can declare religion protected or not (as they have done all along). And a locality - if the Muzzies in Dearborn control the town and want that wailing, then so be it.

But where Christians want church bells, they ought to have em.
The secularists should not be able to shut them up, like they did here.

No, it cannot.  It is the correct answer.  It is the only answer that avoids the sort of religious warfare that wracked Europe.

You wish to impose your personal religious views on everyone else in precisely the same manner that the current leftists want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.  Both are wrong, morally and constitutionally.

[roamer_1]

No, it cannot.  It is the correct answer.  It is the only answer that avoids the sort of religious warfare that wracked Europe.

Incorrect. Support the Muzzies and that warfare will come here too. It follows every Muzzie invasion, every time. Sooner or later they take over, unless a Charles The Hammer shows up.

You wish to impose your personal religious views on everyone else in precisely the same manner that the current leftists want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.  Both are wrong, morally and constitutionally.

No. My personal views are NOT served. I am a christian, but a Sabbaterian, and an Hebrew Roots observer - My sh*t is on Saturday, not Sunday. I observe close to Judaism. So my religious beliefs are no part of it.

[Hoodat]

I’d be very careful about one asks for in this regard.  Do we want the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast on the school PA system all day?

This is the proverbial camels nose in that tent.

At the risk of getting this thread locked, here is my two cents.

First off, that decision would be up to the voters of that particular school system or area.  If the residents of Williamsburg, Brooklyn want Jewish prayers broadcast in their local schools, then the federal government should butt out.  If you don't want muslim prayers on your local school PA system, then get involved with your local school board and set the appropriate rules.  But again the federal government should stay the hell out.

As for Lemon v. Kurtzman, this is yet another bad decision of the Courts that injects its tyranny on the rest of us.  There is no Constitutional basis for a court making up its own set of test rules (i.e. 'laws') that usurp the power of state and local legislatures.  Nor is there any Constitutional basis for "separation of church and state".  Furthermore, the Establishment clause of Amendment I applies to Congress only.  It does not apply to States.

Also, it was Engel v. Vitale that ended school prayer, not Lemon v. Kurtzman.

For anyone wishing to discuss 'Establishment', I find it ironic how the Supreme Court deemed 'secular humanism' to be the one judicially sanctioned 'religion' allowed in public schools.

It is also ironic how the court used Everson (a case the prayer-haters lost) as the basis for overturning 160 years of original intent, where suddenly the Court seized the opportunity to repeal the Tenth Amendment and exert supreme judiciary control over every aspect of our free exercise.

The beauty of our Constitution is the balance of powers it provides through concrete limits on federal powers.  And with our First Amendment, Madison emphasized this balance by grouping the Establishment clause alongside the Free Exercise clause - one that has been completely ignored by this same court.  But either way, Amendment I places a limitation on Congress only - not on the Pennsylvania legislature.

[roamer_1]

@Hoodat

That's right.

Congress shall make no law.

It doesn't say anything about anybody else.
It doesn't say anything about governors.
It doesn't say anything about state assembies
It doesn't say anything about counties or cities.

[Right_in_Virginia]

First off, that decision would be up to the voters of that particular school system or area.  If the residents of Williamsburg, Brooklyn want Jewish prayers broadcast in their local schools, then the federal government should butt out.  If you don't want muslim prayers on your local school PA system, then get involved with your local school board and set the appropriate rules. 

But again the federal government should stay the hell out.

The federal government can determine if state or local laws are discriminatory, primarily through the federal court system and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Judicial review: The federal court system can review state/local laws challenged in court. If a law is found to violate the U.S. Constitution, such as by denying equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, it can be declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Supremacy Clause: This clause in the Constitution states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. If a state/local law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law prevails, and the law is superseded.

A state cannot simply vote to outlaw the Muslim call to prayer because it would likely violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. While religious practices can be regulated if they disrupt public order or safety, singling out a specific religion's practice for a ban is unconstitutional. Any restrictions would need to be neutral and applicable to all religions to be legally defensible.

[Hoodat]

The federal government can determine if state or local laws are discriminatory, primarily through the federal court system and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Judicial review: The federal court system can review state/local laws challenged in court. If a law is found to violate the U.S. Constitution, such as by denying equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, it can be declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

True.

Supremacy Clause: This clause in the Constitution states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. If a state/local law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law prevails, and the law is superseded.

Again, true.  However, there is no federal legislative law applicable here.

A state cannot simply vote to outlaw the Muslim call to prayer because it would likely violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

I would argue that it would violate the free exercise that each State's own Constitution guarantees to its citizens.  The US First Amendment doesn't guarantee free exercise of religion.  That came from our Creator.  The First Amendment guarantees protection from Congress only.

While religious practices can be regulated if they disrupt public order or safety, singling out a specific religion's practice for a ban is unconstitutional. Any restrictions would need to be neutral and applicable to all religions to be legally defensible.

Agreed.

See:  Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District