Believe it or not, the Supreme Court has no legal definition or standards to define religion referred to in the First Amendment?
In My Last Post
I stated I will explain why it is time for the Supreme Court to define the legal meanings of two entities, religion, and political.
First Amendment Religion and Expression
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. (Source HERE)
Legal Definition of Religion
“Although it has attempted to create standards to differentiate religious beliefs and actions from similar nonreligious beliefs, the Supreme Court has never articulated a formal definition for religion.” (Source HERE)
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from interfering with individual religious beliefs. The government cannot enact laws aiding any religion or establishing an official state religion. The courts have interpreted the Establishment Clause to accomplish the separation of church and state on both the national and state levels of government.The authors of the First Amendment drafted the Establishment Clause to address the problem of government sponsorship and support of religious activity. (Source HERE)
Religious Law and Legal Definition
“In the past, religion wholly controlled the law; today law controls the scope and sphere of religion in major parts of the world. For most Americans, the relationship between law and religion is limited almost exclusively to the question of the separation of church and state.” (Source HERE)
Legal Definition of Political Control
The control given through power of position held by influential political personnel. Might give them the authority to appoint an individual to an office, allow or refuse participation in any formal group or to give additional benefits. (Source HERE)
Legal Definition of a Political Forces
Political practices, pressure groups or influential political individuals are known as political forces. (Source HERE)
What is My Point?
There is a fine line distinction between control by a religion force or a political force. There is also a responsibility assigned to both religious and political actions.
In Business Law, or Tort Law, if someone is harmed, and it is proven that a person or party caused the harm, then that party will be held responsible and the injured party will be rewarded monetary amounts for their loss.
My point about Islam is that someone in power is influencing terrorists to harm innocents. Yet, in the USA, the entire burden for the harm inflicted is being born by taxpayers or private individuals who suffered the harm and loss.
USA tax exemptions to religions are a form of subsidy that may be supporting Islam to teach or motivate terrorists;
Now is the time to address Islam as being responsible for terrorism and for Islam Institutions to be held responsible for the harm caused by their influence. Also, to establish controls to prevent the risks from growing.
Three Reasons Why is it Time?
1.In Post Two I explained how an Iranian Ayatollah defined suicide bombers as martyrs. Prior to that time, the was a very small population percentage of Islamist faith believers residing in the USA. Since that time the percentages have grown significantly along with Islam terrorist incidents such as 9/11 etc.
2.The cost of homeland security as a result of 9/11 is estimated to be $70 million per week more on homeland security than they had before 9/11.(Source HERE)
3.“Terrorism is a hazard to human life and material prosperity that should be addressed in a sensible manner whereby the benefits of actions to contain it outweigh the costs. Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015. (Source HERE)
The beginning of strife is seepage of water; so desist before the quarrel erupts. (Proverb 17:14)
The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water,…. As when a man makes a little hole in the bank of a river, or cuts a small passage in it, to let the water into an adjoining field; by the force of the water, the passage is widened, and it flows in, in great abundance, to the overflow and prejudice of the field; nor is it easily stopped: so a single word, spoken in anger, with some warmth, or in a way of contradiction, has been the beginning and occasion of great strife and contention. (Gils Commentary)
In My Opinion
It is folly to continue to ignore Islam as a political force and do nothing to remedy to reduce the propagation (little water hole) risks of Islam influence on terrorist’s attacks growing the USA. (overflow and prejudice of the field, of the USA)
The Supreme Court needs to define and explain why Islam is either a religion, a political force, or both, in order to prevent greater risks of terrorism to continue to grow in the future. Once that is done, measures can be implemented to identify or vet Islam immigrants or visitors into the USA in order to reduce the risks of terrorism.
In future posts, I will explain in later posts a simplified Constitutional method to hopefully attempt to control and reduce the risks of terrorism, and to assign responsibility for Tort losses for victims.
In My Next Post
I will explain the writings of Bible and the Koran. The reason being that both religions believe in martyrs. What is the core differences, and why the Koran can be considered political force rather than a religious force?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Post One HERE
Post Two HERE
Post Three HERE
Post Four HERE