Thinking a lot about the definition of "religion" in the first amendment. 2A antagonists spend a lot of time talking about how technological advances have made the original language ill-suited to modern contexts. I am thinking this is a more apt critique of 1A.
-
-
Fwiw, my sense is that the law has no coherent theory of what is & isn't religion, basically if you call yourself a religion you are one unless it's in bad faith (eg FSM). People rarely don't claim religion status bc it has such benefits when you're starting out.
-
If the war of ideology v ideology is like a video game, claiming religion status is like an early-game advantage that handicaps you in the end game bc stops you from getting established.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As for case law, there’s many cases dealing with religion in relation to law, but I’m not sure about the definition of religion. May be a crackpot theory but if they used Kennedy’s words in planned parenthood v. Casey, the door could be wide open
pic.twitter.com/1cnhlCTvAA
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
some of the cases about whether scientology counts as a religion probably did some narrowing of definitions
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.