Secular Amendments

It seems that GOD can SAVE YOU from the state, afterall! But, first make sure that you have a law-abiding GOD. Still gotta watch out for the BIG STICK, eH? A 501-(c)3, not-for-profit, money-grubbing god will do.

Today, I researched the legal precedent of ORDAINED MINISTRY.

I found this snippet from a court ruling in a case against the Universal Life Church (they offer instant, online ordination here: http://www.ulc.org/ ):

"Neither this Court, nor any branch of this Government, will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion. Nor will the Court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the Court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. Were the Court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantees of the First Amendment..."
--1974, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ruling

This got me thinking about the first amendment, in general.

The first constitutional amendment 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."

I turned to the web-resource WIKIPEDIA (a great RESOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/ ) and found an article on this amendment that expressed that the supreme court actuallly abides by a VIRTUAL TEXT when discussing issues of jurisprudence about the amendment (and much of the constitution, I would presume). Here is an abridged portion of the VIRTUAL first amendment from the wiki-article:

"No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press all media of information; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This general prohibition shall be subject to the following elaborations, extensions, restrictions, limitations, interpretations and conditions: a. The absolute freedom of engaging in or refraining from speech and non-verbal communication, and receiving or refusing to receive information, without any coercion, shall be a rebuttable presumption in any administrative or judicial proceeding, concerning any attempts to abridge them. The onus of rebutting this presumption shall rest entirely on the party seeking such abridgment, by showing that the speech or non-verbal communication sought to be restrained, or the information to be withheld, do not, by virtue of some other conflicting and overriding considerations or necessities, fall within the categories of freedoms that this section is intended to protect; b. Any Congressional, State, or local legislation or regulation by any governmental authority, which is so imprecise, ambiguous, vague, overbroad, or excessively general in its terms that it provides a pretext for arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement, uncertainty in the minds of persons of common intelligence as to the limits of protected communication, and creating a chilling effect on the unrestrained exercise of freedoms clearly not proscribed, shall be wholly void on its face; except that insubstantial defects may enable the courts to merely sever unenforceable parts or specific applications thereof; c. Prior restraint shall not be imposed on any communication by institutionalized or informal censorship or coercion, however subtle, unless, in each instance such restraint is sought, a fair judicial hearing, following proper notice, is held; except where the required delay may cause irreparable harm, upon which a temporary restraining order, subject to a prompt subsequent hearing, may be issued . . ."
--from Thomas Ladanyi's book "The 1987 Constitution"

Another interesting web-resource on this issue was an online book "Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand Up?" by Barry Krusch.
Read it here: http://www.krusch.com/real/real.html

These raise more questions than answers, but I like things that way.