Government Tries to Redefine First Amendment in Major Federal Prayer Case

First Liberty ^ | March 25, 2017 | Staff

[Mechanicos]

"But the bigger issue is that the City of Louisburg argued in their brief that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion amounts to little more than the right to choose a religion."

[Mechanicos]

"The officers left, but later returned to her home and again demanded to be let in. Once inside, the officers proceeded to harass Ms. Sause, telling her to prepare to go to jail, ordering her to stop praying, and saying the Constitution was “just a piece of paper.”"

[G Larry]

Exactly the position taken by Nazi Germany.

If cops are responding to “loud radio”, they’re over staffed.

I suspect there’s an underlying motive here, perhaps related to cop ego.

[frogjerk]

OBAMI: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."

What is bad about this lawsuit is that they keep stating "in one's home." You have the RIGHT to exercise your religious beliefs in public not just your home.

I support the police but not these communist thugs. They violated this woman's 1st and 4th amendment rights and probably some others as well. Truly despicable.

[Steely Tom]

The low-grade ideologue judges appointed by Obola would probably agree with this.

[Edward.Fish]

Here's the appropriate document, with much stronger guarantees and prohibitions:

Kansas Constitution
Bill of Rights
§ 7. Religious liberty property qualification for public office.
The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, nor any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for any vote at any elections, nor shall any person be incompetent to testify on account of religious belief.

The First Amendment is not applicable at all in this case, as it plainly reads:

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.

You might argue that the 14th amendment applies the first amendment to state and local governments, but if it did so then the plain text has to be changed in some way as States (and municipalities/counties) simply do not have a Congress -- thus, if such application has any effect then you implicitly assert that the fourteenth amendment not only applies the first amendment, but somehow alters it. (Something I've been unable to find in reading the 14th amendment.)

[Pollster1]

The communist thug also repeatedly referred to “freedom of worship”, clearly trying to define freedom of religion down to something that only applies for one or two hours a week. Its legal meaning, and its meaning under natural law both protect the ongoing exercise of a nearly absolute freedom to follow sincere religious beliefs, 24 hours a days, seven days a week.

[Steve_Seattle]

This case sounds so weird that I think that some essential facts have been left out of the story. Even in these anti-Christian times, I have a hard time believing that the police would try to prevent someone from praying in their own home.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Exactly. The leftists always say they support “freedom of worship” and they never say “freedom of religion” or “freedom of conscience.” They want to make the First Amendment to be very narrowly defined. So all “freedom of worship” would mean is that the pastor or priest would be free to speak during a worship service about purely religious matters - maybe a sermon about the meaning of baptism or some such matter of church doctrine would be allowed. But a sermon about, say, abortion or gay marriage would be defined as not being a legitimate matter of “freedom of worship” but it would be seen as the church criminally interfering with “civil rights.”

[SaintDismas]

There has to be more to this I agree. Something is being left out here just really odd I don’t get it

[Scrambler Bob]

Sounds like she was praying while the cops were trying to question her and/or maybe stop loud radio noise.

If she was doing ‘spiritual warfare’ in response to the cops’ entrance, it could be loud, and she would be unresponsive to the cops.

Might explain a little, but does not excuse the cops.