It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Get a FREE Copy of "The Essential Federalist Papers
What Jefferson called the greatest commentary on Government ever written, organized by topic!
John Adams is my favorite founding father. Maybe the catalysis that if not there, might have left us all, still British Citizens.
Probably the most important aspect of the quote is the last: “provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.” Anybody who obstructs others in their religious worship runs entirely afoul fo Adams and our founders.
This would go a long way toward defining what freedom of religion is as mentioned in the bill of rights.
If this is true … explain to me how the SCOTUS could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the Westboro Baptist Church should be granted protected speech to Violate the Religious Liberty of Funerals for our fallen soldiers!!??!! The burial rites are one of the most sacred parts of most religions.
The freedom of hatred and vile actions and speech of this – I won’t cal it a church, but a MOB of Anarchists, ends where it begins to infringe upon the Freedom of Religion of the fallen souldier and his family and friends… that should include verbal and visual speech rights.
This SCOTUS decision is a travesty!!!
Interesting paradox – they can espouse what would be considered as hate speech when coming from any of us, but under the guise of a “church” , it immediately becomes protected under the First Amendment. Is this equal protections under the law? Why do I believe that if I were to attend and protest at any of their funerals, it would be a different story. I would be arrested and they would be protected under the First Amendment.
It is NOT Equal Protection under the law because there is intentional infringement of the rights of the one upon the rights of the other. The fact that this infringement is born by the offenders from their locale to any distant locale is evidence of willful intent.
I do not want to get too far off-topic (or spend more time then necessary defending a group that I am decidedly against), but Dan, I do not agree with your comments on this. The issue was not whether Phelps’ “Church” and its members should be granted protected speech. They do not need to be granted anything new. They are free, and they have the right to be free, and their right to speak freely is already protected, and it should be. Free people can be evil, too, and evil people can be free.
It is possible, of course, for their actions — depending on what they do — to actually violate someone’s rights. Depending on where the funeral is and what the Westboro people do, they could be violating property rights. If they hit or threaten people or block peoples’ paths, that naturally would tend to violate people’s rights. Their actions, depending on what they do, could even impede someone’s religious freedom (though not the First Amendment, which is strictly a protection of certain rights from infringement by governments).
However, as long as they’re just talking, while situated someplace where they otherwise have the right to go, behaving in ways that would otherwise be legal, it is not possible for them to restrain the freedom (religious or otherwise) of the families and friends and others attending the funeral by reason of nothing other than the fact that because Westboro’s message is objectively wicked.
I have not read the Supreme Court’s opinion on this, yet, and I cannot say for sure that Westboro has not done anything that may not be restrained. Again, it depends on what they’re doing (though not what they’re saying), but I do know that as far as it concerns law and justice, they have the right to befoul any place with their opinions as much as we have the right to bring something pleasant and constructive to it, or to fight back.
There are people who are fighting Westboro the right way. It’s a group of guys on motorcycles, and whenever Westboro is expected to show up at a funeral, the motorcycle people contact the family and ask for permission to attend and to stand, respectfully, in front of the Westboro people, forming a respectful human barrier between the villains and the heroes (and their families and friends).
Bein’s I’m no lawyer, I guess I can’t field an effective arguement on this, but I’m definitely hung up on the infringement issue and there is no way this doesn’t fall under that umbrella.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
So, if SCOTUS passes a decision permitting a mob to raise a ruckus preventing the “Free Exercise thereof” I guess it must be legal, as long as Congress didn’t do it. Based upon what Adams had to say, it would seem this was not the intent of the law.
Sorry part of this is, this mob will eventually trip somebody’s trigger who will bring them resounding retribution because this decision didn’t end it.
Well, first, it cannot violate the First Amendment because it is being done by a private party, not a government. The Supreme Court did not cause these people to do what they did. It recognized and declared that the Constitution prevents there from being a law restraining these people from doing what they did. Second, if the Court was right that the Westboro people were on another lot (supplying a detail that I did not have, before), it is difficult to imagine how anything they were doing (unless it involved projectiles) prevented the free exercise of religion on the part of the funeral gathering. Even if nobody had to even see or hear the protesters but were aware of their presence, it would have interfered with the funeral in some mental or emotional way, but that kind of interference, though it would be wrong, would not be a violation of rights in freedom. Without rare, special circumstances, however, that is the primary type of interference that speech could have (though noise could be an issue, depending on the volume).
Well, sinced this is a major topic on about 5 different threads and 3 different pages, I don’t know anymore which information has been made available to you, but witnesses on one of these threads testified to Loud chanting (and they were in audio range being the next lot), projectiles being thrown…, even the memorial comments on the website for the Funeral home was spammed by these animals were all involved.
Dan, I agree those Westboro folks are wrong in their actions, but I cannot see how they are violating anyone’s freedom of religion. They may be causing a public disturbance, but that is another matter. I am so glad that those motorcyclists are also creating a public disturbance! But I fear this will eventually lead to violence. One day the Westboro folks are going to picket the funeral of the wrong person. My brother is a vet. If he had died, and those guys had shown up at his funeral, there would have been no holding back my father. He would have pounded them.
don’t know which thread it was on (I’ve been on 5 on 3 pages) but that was the fear I expressed as well… but in much more comprehensive terms. These folks seem to not have the sense to realize their protest over homosexuality is being focused on the military… not just homosexuals…, actually, not EVEN homosexuals.
They seem unaware that there is often a fellowship of Brotherhood. They seem unaware that this brotherhood may be of any manner of roots, family, school, previous occupation, or military… Sooner or later they’re gonna trip a trigger and it ain’t gonna be over til its over. Its like these folks have a death wish… maybe a branch that missed the trip with the Koolaid drinking crowd about 20 yrs ago, looking for a more violent end.
“…provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.” This part is where the SCOTUS erred. Also, in Article 1, “..prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The funeral is a solemn event of religious import in most cases. If there is shouting and harassment, there is a violation of the free exercise, and there is definitely a disturbance of the public peace, and an obstruction of others in their religious worship. I don’t believe this group is can be called christian much less Christian and they condemn themselves for they are making judgment about the eternal resting place of the soul and that is reserved for somebody a great deal higher than they are.
They will be judged with the same understand, forgiveness, and mercy that they display. Matt 7:1 ¶ “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
If they’re using projectiles, then I agree that that part of their protest actually violates certain rights of those who are attending the funeral. It would impact their religious freedom, but it does not concern the First Amendment, which restricts government, not private behavior. As a physical attack, it also violates rights that are not plainly listed in the Constitution (and probably do not need to be) and opens the attackers up to lawsuits *against them* and to prosecution on perfectly solid constitutional ground. (The Supreme Court did not decide that throwing objects at people is protected by the First Amendment.) As far as the noise is concerned, I can only make the general statement that some noise is allowed but that it is possible for it to be too loud. There is no natural and logical or universal rule concerning how much noise people can project onto other peoples’ property, and the reasonable limit would vary based on the time and the place. Also, I do not know how loud the protesters actually were or how well it would carry. (This is one reason why I like the idea of parking a large truck on the property line, though. I would expect it to block out some of the noise, in addition to obscuring the view of the protesters — and it would be perfectly constitutional.)