0
What would be a violation by the government of the free exercise clause?
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
anything that would be construded as overly billigerent or in any way deemed violent
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do religions not pay any taxes is it because they are doing the government a favor by getting you to pay your taxes and getting you to obey the law sounds like the church works for the state?
Answer 1It depends on the country, but the way this question is written, it seems to be seeking a US American perspective.For reference, please see the First Amendment to the US Constitution below:The reason religions do not pay taxes is not because they get you to obey the law. In fact, numerous individuals in the United States commit terrorist or criminal activities (such as bombing abortion clinics) in the name of their religions. This would seem to run counter to the government desire to promote domestic tranquility. Also, as the question notes, this would amount to being a subsidy, which would create a government interest in religion and therefore be a violation of the "Establishment Clause" in the First Amendment.The lack of taxation for these institutions comes from two other clauses in the First Amendment, namely the "Prohibition of Religions Clause" and the "Right to Assembly Clause". By imposing taxes on religious institutions this would effectively serve to regulate those institutions. This would prevent religions in a difficult economic position from surviving and therefore limit the exercise of religion to those religions capable of paying the tax levied on them. This would be a violation of the "Prohibition of Religions Clause" since Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This would also be a violation of the "Right to Assembly" since religious groups are social organizations, like clubs. By taxing a religious group, there is a regulation of the size and scope under which people can peaceably assemble.First Amendment (Annotated for Answer 1)[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion]"Establishment Clause", or [prohibiting the free exercise thereof]"Prohibition of Religions Clause"; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the [right of the people peaceably to assemble]"Right to Assembly Clause", and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What oes the free exercise clause state?
The free exercise clause is located in the First Amendment. The original text is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (emphasis added).The original intent of the free exercise clause was to protect the government from taking over or getting involved in a person's religion.
Which clause in article 6 section 2 of the constitution could the federal government use to override the states bills of rights?
The supremacy clause gave the federal government the ability to override the states bill of rights.
It would be a violation of your if the government illegally took your house?
property right
Is the government going to publish your prescriptions?
No. This would probably be a HIPPA violation.
What clause of the Austrian ultimatum did Serbia refuse to comply with?
It's clause number 6: "To take judicial proceedings against accessories to the plot of the 28th of June who are on Serbian territory; delegates of the Austro-Hungarian Government will take part in the investigation relating thereto;"Serbian answer to that clause was:"..As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution..."
What are the Two parts of Freedom of religion?
The First Amendment states that Congress will not make any laws establishing religion and that there would be free exercise of any religion. These two clause make up what is called the Establishment part of the First Amendment.
Is government ok with many religions since one size does not fit all when it comes to religion but only as long as the church preaches social conformity meaning pay your taxes obey the law?
Answer 1It depends on the country. Historically, there has been a union between church and state and such a union still exists in many countries. The King of Morocco leads prayers on Friday. The King of Thailand represents all Theravada Buddhists in Thailand. The Queen of England is the official head of the Anglican Church.However, many governments, like the United States are founded on a separation of church and state and it would seem the question refers to such regimes. For reference during the analysis, please see the First Amendment to the US Constitution below:The reason religions do not pay taxes is not because they get you to obey the law. In fact, numerous individuals in the United States commit terrorist or criminal activities (such as bombing abortion clinics) in the name of their religions. This would seem to run counter to the government desire to promote domestic tranquility. Also, as the question notes, this would amount to being a subsidy, which would create a government interest in religion and therefore be a violation of the "Establishment Clause" in the First Amendment.The lack of taxation for these institutions comes from two other clauses in the First Amendment, namely the "Prohibition of Religions Clause" and the "Right to Assembly Clause". By imposing taxes on religious institutions this would effectively serve to regulate those institutions. This would prevent religions in a difficult economic position from surviving and therefore limit the exercise of religion to those religions capable of paying the tax levied on them. This would be a violation of the "Prohibition of Religions Clause" since Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This would also be a violation of the "Right to Assembly" since religious groups are social organizations, like clubs. By taxing a religious group, there is a regulation of the size and scope under which people can peaceably assemble.First Amendment (Annotated for Answer 1)[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion]"Establishment Clause", or [prohibiting the free exercise thereof]"Prohibition of Religions Clause"; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the [right of the people peaceably to assemble]"Right to Assembly Clause", and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What best summarizes the Supreme Court decisions regarding the establishment clause?
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
Who Would Control Trade Among the States?
the Federal Government. A fundamental Interstate Commerce Clause issue
Which two freedoms guaranteed in the bill of right apply to this situation?
First Amendment - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petitionCongress 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.The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congressshall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... " In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."Jehovah's Witnesses were often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Subsequently, the Warren Court adopted an expansive view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation.PS Wikipedia is an awesome tool.
Which case was the Supreme Court first ruling on the Establishment Clause?
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
