The planet Kolob, not so much. Murder authorized by a cult of fanatic religious zealots— not so much.
Black congressional caucus- perfectly legit if not dominated by crazed black muslim islamofascist Farrakhanites.
The “yelling fire in a theater” limit of religion exists and should be legally applied.
Forgot one other “non-church”— Scientology.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion established by the State. IF the advancement of a relgion violates our Constitution and Bill of Rights— you bet— outlaw them, because they are charades.
You do realize that the case that you're citing, Shenck, wasall about ignoring the first amendment, don't you? Here's some text from the actual opinion:
It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the [p52] main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462. We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. […] The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.The whole
fire in a crowded theater* argument is a red-herring; for the first amendment does not offer protection for speech but instead prescribes a prohibition for the government making such laws. This is to say that under the first amendment the federal government cannot make judgements of speech [or press] via the law — but this ruling clearly says that the first amendment's unconditional constraint may be ignored on the conditions of preventing
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. — Or, most simply, they can ignore the constitution's constraints when it is convenient.
* Besides this, the proper response is to consider this false fire-shouter civilly liable; and there there is no legislation involved there. (So, as you can see, by moving the proper realm of consideration, the federal government grants itself more powers, even those expressly prohibited it.)