Does a Church have Freedom of Religion?
Blair Scott, Communications Director, stated, “Religious freedom is guaranteed to the individual: not a collection of individuals or an organization. A church does not have religious freedom: the individual congregants do. A collection of religious persons do not have religious freedom: the individuals in that collection do. You cannot amass your individual freedoms to trump the freedoms of others.”
I read that in an article over here and it got me to thinking, is that true?
As far as I can reckon it is, I just never really thought about it before.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
There are several meanings in that single line, but one I never thought of was that an “Establishment” cannot practice a Religion so “free exercise thereof” does not apply.
People can be part of an establishment, but noone can actually Be an Establishment. This negates an establishment itself from having any actual Constitutional Rights.
You may as well give an outhouse Freedom of Speech as give a Church (literal building) Freedom of Religion. Maybe we should give Cats and Dogs the Right to Bear Arms.
That would be almost amusing actually, until some critter that got neutered decides it wants revenge.
I’m not saying that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques or any other structure or property owned by a religious organization should be treated any differently than they are now, for the moment.
Nor any organisation or group have their currently afforded rights and privileges revoked becasue of this, again not for the moment anyway.
This is definatly something I intend to consider further and I suggest others do so too if you haven’t already. I only just read it so I havnt realy looked at all the angles yet or I would go on further.