But yeah they may have backed down because they sensed either a political backlash brewing or a legal challenge coming their way, either of which would be painful.
Citation please. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._... suggests that animal sacrifice is protected under the Constitution.
However you made a very specific claim that flies in the face of what I understand the interpretation to be. I would be interested in a citation. (I've already given a citation of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of animal sacrifice on grounds of religious freedom.)
If there are, they are a matter of public record and probably even online. You could provide citations.
What's the point of having a constitution if it's NOT absolute and then consistently ignored by government at will?
But let's go directly to the Constitution itself. To wit, the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Any reasonable person just can't believe this Amendment is truly and effectively the law of the land, as practiced, if you see all the references to the Judeo-Christian God in government documents, ceremonies, speeches and buildings. Also there are any number of religions, both actual and possible, whose free expression is prohibited by one or more other laws enforced by the government. The counter-argument is to say, well, the government honors this amendment by not explicitly forcing anyone to be Christian, and by not explicitly respecting Judaism/Christianity over others, and not explicitly and directly forbidding any given religion in particular, etc. But in effect, it clearly does these things, in effect, if not at a superficial level.
A better argument you could make is to say that the principle of the separation of Church and State, taken literally, is honored by the government. And taken very literally, it is. Because the government is not a religion and does not operate any churches. But the counter-argument there of course is that the US national government is a religion (there are hymns, myths, icons, rituals, blind obediance to external authority lest you be punished, patronization, you're forced to tithe, etc.) and that the government does operate churches (buildings you visit regularly, or feel obligated too out of moral/civic duty, with anachronistic architectural styling, icon imagery, rituals, tithing, authority submission, explainers of exotic and sometimes seemingly anachronistic and overly detailed codes of morality and punishment and how they apply to your life, etc.) Just because something isn't called a church, doesn't mean it isn't, goes this kind of argument. And I think it's a pretty enlightening one.
Any non-profit, that otherwise follows the rules, and is approved, can be tax-exempt. But you can't just create any arbitrary religion and have it recognized by the legal system and approved. The State has to approve your religion, else you don't get the tax exemption. And I'm not speaking as someone who personally wants to do that. The point of fact is important for understanding the relationship of the US government to religion, in actual reality. Not in theory, not in some ideal world of words. But in reality.
What does "absolute" mean?
The Constitutional guarantees are probably absolute, depending on what your idea of it is. What they aren't is comprehensively understood. You don't really seem to understand how the government works. This is what happens.
A law is written. This is the first gate; someone has to actually care enough to put it down on paper. This law can have arbitrary text and mandate arbitrary terms. It needs to be agreed upon by a good 500 people who are at least nominally looking out for the best interests of the full 310-million-person population. In the specific case of the OP, the Minnesota Legislature is about 200 persons representing 5 million. That's the second gate; a court of mild scrutiny. Then it has to be plausible enough for the elected president or governor to agree to enact it and actually do it. That's the third gate. At this point, and only at this point, does something like this have the opportunity to happen. This is the point at which something like owning a machine gun becomes illegal, and the police are allowed to arrest people who do.
There are a couple routes into the next stage, but this is the easiest to understand. The state decides to press charges against the offender under the aforementioned law. The lawyers involved may wish to ask the judge about the constitutionality of the law. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU watch for opportunities like this to step in on behalf of the defendant or plaintiff precisely in order to point out the unconstitutionality of certain laws and bring to bear the not-inconsiderable weight of their legal experience to prove it to the judge, who must make the final call. And, in case the judge makes a poor judgement (corruption, ineptness, etc.), there is a hierarchy of appeals that ends at the SCOTUS. It is usually through this mechanism that something like yelling "fire" is made illegal: Justice Holmes used it as a metaphor to establish a precedent, a test by which future judges could determine whether or not this was a reasonable exception to the broad stroke of the First Amendment.
Democracy is a lot more than a list of ten short paragraphs. Each of those rights have to be justified and defended and their nuance spelled out clearly based on actual events that occur in reality. What does free speech mean if, let's pretend, we had people who could reliably and provably enact mind control through speech? Is executing a heinous criminal without last rites a cruel and unusual punishment if we were certain there existed a Hell to which they'd be tortured for eternity? If everyone could be reasonably expected to own and effectively use a sniper rifle, is it self-defense to murder someone who threatens to shoot you? Upholding one's rights isn't easy, and it's made especially uneasy by the minor detail that we occasionally have no idea what they actually are in some specific case.
in this context, it means without exception
> You don't really seem to understand how the government works.
ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that. :) but yeah, I actually have picked up a thing or two about how the US government works over the last 35+ years of life and education.
That doesn't actually mean anything. Let me assume you're a seasoned programmer and ask you to postulate a society-modeling system and then define the First Amendment in terms of that system. What does "absolute" mean in that context?
> ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that.
I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding. Political philosophy is not a widely-studied subject; most people do not actually recall the details I offered when thinking about political matters. That's why they listen to Obama and Romney promising to do Congress's job and think that these are good reasons to vote for them.
you: "That doesn't actually mean anything."
me: It does mean something.
> I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding.
This is extremely rude.
To others:
The above is becoming all too common on HN. And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore. I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act. Almost, but not quite. I sometimes wish PG went through the site every once in a while and just banned anyone that made comments such as these. The level of discourse and friendliness of atmosphere would improve greatly. Is anyone with me on this?
Anyway, I'll be over in G+ where I can block or mute anyone the instant they behave out of line. (A great feature I'd love to see HN get as well.)
Okay, fair. "Without exception" is what a tyrant says. It is an assertion of whim over reality; instead of caring about consequences to real people, it hand-waves and declares fiat. It is, in short, completely antithetical to the entire point of the Constitution itself. I had assumed you were explaining it inside the context of reality, but apparently that's wrong.
So nevermind that I proposed a route through which you could explain what it means. I suppose all it means is schoolyard rules.
> And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore.
You mean it's not because people seem to be participating on HN for no better reason than pandering to the lurkers? You're the second person in a week I've "discussed" things with only to see that they had no intention of engaging and were only reciting talking points for the voiceless masses.
> I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act.
The feeling is mutual. You've refused to actually back up any of your claims. Instead, your only recourse is character attacks that center around how you're being treated. I've offered you multiple opportunities to actually respond usefully. You've refused to. I've explained my viewpoint honestly; you've dismissed this as being rude. What possible respect do you expect me to have for you?
wow. i'm speechless.
also, me saying that I think you're being rude is not a character attack. If we were talking about economics and then I suddenly declared you probably like to rape babies, that would be a character attack.
anyway, I'm done following up to your comments. I think we're fundamentally out of alignment communication-wise. good luck!
-- A "Free" Education = precisely founder's intent
Whatever legal carve-outs there are from No 1, this seems more like a poster child on why the bill of rights exists. Smart guy A wants to talk to Smart guy B, with no money changing hands, no promises being made. On topics that are verifiably beneficial to society, and on terms in line with society norms (historically). This <whatever-you-want-to-call-it> should not need a permit, a lawyer, or a PR flack. Is the state to have this law amended or taken off the books? It should if it is written in such a way that this is a decision of descretion by a gov't official. But for that, someone will probably need to sue (and waste everyone else's $$). Ugh.