Excellent point.
As a non-Christian, all I ask is that I am allowed to practice my religion within the confines of civil law.
And as a moral, just, and honorable person, I do not find civil laws based on Judeo-Christian tradition particularly confining.
One hypothetical example I use is human sacrifice.
If a particular religion were outlawed in the US due to a passage in it's holy book condoning human sacrifice, that would be in violation of the First Amendment.
However, if one were to actually sacrifice a human, one would be subject to prosecution under our perfectly effective, religiously neutral civil laws against murder/manslaughter. And, one presumes, if it could be proven that the victim were willing, the charge could be reduced to assisted suicide.
While this result would offend nearly everyone in the country, it is the result that the law, as established in the Constitution by the People through their elected representatives, requires.
As my Grandfather often said, "If the law is wrong, change the law." To ignore it is anarchy.
This reminds me of little tit-for-tat that took place in the 1870s British Raj. The British Commander in charge of this particular district learned that the rite of suttee was going to be performed in a near by village.
The British officer went to the village and reminded the village chief that suttee was illegal under the Raj. To which the chief haughtily replied the suttee would take place anyway, explaining: "It is the custom of my people."
To which the British officer replied: "And it is the custom of my people to hang murderers. And if you follow the custom of you people, then I shall follow the custom of mine."
The suttee did not take place.
====================================== Suttee: the act of a Hindu widow being burned alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband
And as a moral, just, and honorable person, I do not find civil laws based on Judeo-Christian tradition particularly confining.”
“One hypothetical example I use is human sacrifice.
If a particular religion were outlawed in the US due to a passage in it's holy book condoning human sacrifice, that would be in violation of the First Amendment.”
I don’t think anyone in the Union is going to be permitted to practice human sacrifice as a religious observance (I know you know this, and I know you do not advocate any such practices), and I doubt First Amendment religious provisions would receive even so much as a moment’s judicial notice in the consideration. We aren’t allowed to falsely cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, despite a First Amendment provision protecting free speech, and ritual human sacrifice will certainly fare no better than crying “FIRE!” You may be perfectly assured that such an act would most decidedly immediately subject one to the criminal laws of some one or another legal jurisdiction.
In the present judicial atmosphere one cannot even count on First Amendment protections for religious practices far less bizarre than the one you describe (and again, yes, I understand you do not propose their practice). In fact, the First has been turned on its head, and it would seem that the ‘free exercise thereof’ provision will soon be found contrary to the ‘prohibition of establishment’ provision (it is now, in reality, if not pro forma).
The First Amendment, remarkably, has become the primary instrument in use to exclude religious practitioners, primarily Christians, from participation in public life. Is this the result either we, the presently living, or the long-departed generation of the Founding Fathers, expected the prohibition against religious establishment would produce? Surely, that is not the case.
A little perspective on an issue almost sure to arise:
Has anyone considered what would be involved in an actual circumstance where we had an accomplished establishment of religion in America? Is it not so that we ought to consider it?
If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?
1) A resolution establishing a specific denomination as the “official” state religion of this country.
2) The expenditure of public funds directly subsidizing the operations of that denomination, to the exclusion of all others.
3) A resolution mandating the public and private observance of religious holidays and other religious days specific to that denomination (and perhaps to the exclusion of all others).
4) The enactment of laws codifying, at least in part, the church doctrines specific to that denomination and perhaps outlawing, as well, the public and private observance of the doctrines of other denominations and sects.
5) A resolution mandating the education of all children, if not adults, in the doctrines of the “established” church, or perhaps the establishment of public schools devoted to religiously approved education, to the exclusion of any other institutions of education, public or private.
6) An outright ban of the public or private practice of certain categories of religions. For example, Congress might outlaw all organizations it would choose to designate as being a “cult”, even though the cult’s practices might not come into conflict with any other long established and well received public policies.
7) As a matter of custom or fundamental law, the right of high church officers to occupy certain governmental posts (such as Secretary of Education, Secretary of State, or perhaps Attorney General).
Does the above, in any way, resemble the controversies with which public forums are presently seized? And what, exactly, is meant by ‘government sponsored’ or ‘government sanctioned’ religion?
Anyone?