amendment1 phil 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. Doesn't that mean it can't be lawful for one person to use drugs, avoid armed service, etc. while it is unlawful for another person based on religion? Isn't it unlawful to make any law about religion? 070424 ... fuffle :-) Chapter x=y "On Religion" they've "done work" havn't they ! i mean if you look at the progress we have made since the cavemen. thank Jah for technology ! but i personally think there are generally too many words in every religious book... there should be a new wave religion called "Simplicity" that way people will be less confused at how to interpret the text. Every religion more or less says the same thing - you know that word - ____ . (fill in the gap) Its a shame some people became egocentric and wanted to use their religion as a means to control people.. for example the ladies that cover everything but their eyes.. its very alluring i agree but .. it must be soo hot and so restrictive.. some men are just so nasty to women. There are many topics you could choose on that, sex for example, what would you say about that ? before or after marriage ? - i'm not sure if it matters that much if you love someone... i mean a piece of paper ain't gunna change anything.. but then again.. some people like to savor things... some people eat the most yummy thing on their plate first and some people save it for last. I don't like the boys that can't control themselves.. masterbate on you and then ask you what you name is in the morning... that is called using someone...and it feels like shit. (Phychosexual Dysfunction - ask Ninga - she knows more) We all hope that everyone one day will be in on the same boat believing in the same things.. and we hope that we don't fight for which water pistol we would prefer to use. We can just laugh at the real guns when they house them in the Tate Gallery. ........ ............ ................. 070424 ... phil go fuck yourself. 070514 ... Backflip ohhhh are ! walk the plank ! or do a rap song ! 070514 ... Strideo I'm not sure I entirely understand your question phil. Regarding religion, the First Amendment simply states the the government shall not make any laws establishing a religion or interfere in the free practice of religion. I would take the establishment part to also mean that the state should not make laws to enforce religious doctrine since it could easily be argued that to do so is merely passing laws to establish a religion in smaller parts but there are still some states out there with "blue laws" such as banning the sale of alcohol on sunday and other laws that seem little more than thinly veiled state enforcement of what could be religious morals. Interestingly people often mistakenly cite that the constitution says specifically that there shall be a "separation of church and state" however the phrase "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the constitution. It is strongly implied in the First Amendment though that the constitution generally agrees with this political doctrine and that part of the intent of the First Amendment was to establish that the government shall be a secular government showing no favor or discrimination based on religion. Obviously you can't use religion as a basis to violate the rights of other individuals through force or fraud. There should of course be limits to what you can do in the practice of your religion. As far as the drug part of the question I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm a bit of a radical in that I believe the government should have no power to punish it's citizens for using drugs as long as the drug user does not violate the rights of others or present a danger to others (for example getting high and driving a car), but obviously that isn't how the laws work these days and there are anti-drug laws that the government uses to interfere in the lives of citizens on a regular basis. Of course I'm not a legal scholar or anything but I believe that the constitution was intended to be simple enough to be interpreted by a decently educated layman although there do seem to be parts that feel more vague than they should and it seems more difficult to determine the intent. ... 070515 ... fuffle god that phil bloke - he needs to lighten up a bit... life isn't all serious you know! ... you don't need to read a religious book to understand what is producing a bad energy flow. if you know drugs are bad for you then it is up to you to decide whether to take them or not, no rule or law should control you, in less you don't know who you are. Everything starts somewhere... "in the beginning was the word" there is no right or wrong just to treat people how you yourself would like to be treated. 070515 ... phil Strideo. What i am trying to get at, Why do we need laws that apply only to certain religious groups. Like avoiding military service, using drugs in ceremony, not wearing a helmet, etc. Since these laws only apply to certain religions aren't they restrictive to people not of those religions? 070516 ... Strideo Hmmm, but how prevalent is this? How many people actually get to avoid wearing a motorcycle helmet based on religious grounds or get to use otherwise illegal drugs? I seem to remember something about a muslim woman who wanted to get her driver's license picture taken with her wearing a burka and she refused to uncover her face based on religious grounds. I don't think she was ever granted a license though. what good is a photo I.D. if the photo is of a person who is essentially wearing a mask? I generally believe in equal treatment under the law myself but is this really much of an issue? is there some particularly egregious example that is bothering you? I would think that if anything it would be more restrictive for those who live by these religious doctrines. for example if a man's religion doe not permit him to wear a helmet and he lives in a state where you are not permitted to ride a motorcycle without a helmet what position do you take? is his right to practice his religion being infringed upon because he would have to wear a helmet when he rides a bike or is his religion not permitting him to ride a bike because a helmet is required? it could be argued that the state is not infringing on his right to practice his religion because they aren't busting down the door of his home or his temple or whatever and forcing a helmet onto his head. ... 070516 ... phil But life is serious and drugs are not safe. Strideo, this is from a long time ago some would say, but it doesn't seem so long ago. I think I agree with about everything you said. Its not a matter of it being egregious though, it is a matter of understanding the intent of the law, for reference. 110317 what's it to you? who go blather from