shoko asahara

Yes, and some of us are Satanists too, as well as Hindus, pagans,
Moonies, Rajneeshis, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. America was founded as
a SECULAR state, regardless of how xians try to claim it as a
"xian nation." The Founders were about as close to atheistic as
you could find in the 18th century.

I've been studying the Mexican constitution and they had the right
idea when they wrote so many restrictions on religion into it.
In Mexico churches are forbidden to own any property other than
the actual church building and perhaps an acre or two for the
church grounds and graveyard. This was because historically the
Catholic Church used to be the biggest landowner in Mexico,
forcing the peasants to work on it as serfs for the profit of
the church and its priests and bishops.

Another restriction is that priests, bishops, etc. are forbidden
to vote. They are also forbidden to speak on political or
governmental matters, and churches may not be used for political
meetings of any sort. Religious publications (and by extension
television and radio programs) may also not discuss politics,
politicians, or other government matters. No political or social
organization is allowed to include the name of any religious
denomination in its title. In case there is any doubt, the
Mexican constitution states specifically that the government does
not recognize churches. I couldn't find it in the constitution,
but I remember reading that Mexican law actually prohibited
priests, bishops, monks, nuns, etc. from wearing their clerical
garb in public (but that law was never enforced).

Religious organizations must get the approval of the government
before building any new churches or expanding old ones. Also,
ministers, priests, bishops, etc. must be Mexican citizens. I
also heard that there is a clause in the constitution that
prohibits work without pay - although it doesn't mention
religion, apparently it was aimed at monestaries and convents
whose monks and nuns traditionally work without pay. The
clause doesn't shut them down outright, but makes their
existence much more difficult if they have to pay their members
minimum wage.

So here's my proposal: incorporate all of the above parts of
the Mexican constitution into a single proposed Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. I am so sick of xians abusing the
First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion to shove
their goddamn cult down my throat! Let's try my proposed
Amendment first, and if it still doesn't work let's just adopt
the Soviet tactic of banning religion outright. I would just
love to be Stalin and burn down all the churches and throw
all the self-righteous priests in prison and put all their
followers in mental institutions.

magidin

Your information is old. This was changed during the Salinas regime,
if I recall my dates correctly; religious ministers are currently
allowed to vote. (Though, technically, certain ministers should lose
their citizenship when they become ordained; e.g., by swearing fealty
to a head of a foreign state, The Vatican). This is Article 14 of the
Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Publico.

No, the law was sometimes enforced; but it is no longer in existence
either. It was a prohibition against public acts of worship. This
prohibition no longer exists. There was also a prohibition against
monastic orders (on the grounds that work must be compensated
monetarily, and in a monastic order it is not), which was the source
for the prohibition against monks and nuns: supposedly there couldn't
be any Monasteries or Nunneries, so there shouldn't be any monks or nuns runnign around.


This is false. Article 13 of the Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y
Culto Publico states that either mexicans or foreigners may be
religious ministers ("ministros de culto"), so long as the foreigner
is in the country legally (i.e., has the appropriate visa or
permission), and his or her migratory status does not prohibit the
activities his religion requires, as specified by the Ley General de Poblacion.


Not quite right either; in the 1857 Constitution, there was an
->********<- mention, as a corollary. That is, the law said "And
therefore, monastic orders are abolished and prohibited." The current
Constitution, in article 123, still specifies that salary must be paid
in money, and that any worker must enjoy a minimum salary as
determined by the corresponding law (whether professional or
general). Though monastic orders are not mentioned ********ly any
more, they would still be improper.


Originally, the clause ->did<- ********ly shut them down.


--
================================================== ====================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
================================================== ====================

Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu

shoko asahara

Thank you for clarifying the situation. But I was referring to what
I read in the Mexican Constitution of 1917. I don't have the text
of later Amendments, though, but you are suggesting that what the
Constitution says was overridden by the Mexican law you refer to. So
how is it that a simple law can overrule the Constitution?

And whether or not the Mexican restrictions on religion were later
softened, my argument is that they shouldn't have been. I already
stated that I wish we could go so far as the Soviets in suppressing
religion, but that I was willing to experiment with something a
bit less harsh that would at least keep its self-righteous nose out
of the political process. I am so sick of watching assholes put on
a white collar (or rag on their head in the case of Islam) then act
as if their opinions on politics and government carry some sort of
weight because they speak for "Gawd." And they get to do this
tax-free, of course, while secular political associations do have
to pay taxes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ego te absolvum. De penitencia, reza tres padres nuestros y tres
aves Marías. Ah, me vas a dejar un peso por cada uno de tus pecados."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

magidin

It does not. The current Mexican Constitution has been amended; the
current constitution is still called the "1917 Constitution, as
Amended." Amendments are not places separately, as they are in the US
constitution, but they ->rewrite<- the text of the constitution
itself.

The law is the Regulatory Law for the relevant constitutional
article. Under the Roman Legal Tradition, the constitution sets broad
policy and or rules, and then each article has a relevant "regulatory
law" which specifies procedures and application. Thus, Article 123 of
the Constitution deals with work/labor, and then there is a Federal
Work Law, which goes into details. Article 24 of the Constitution
establishes freedom of religion, no establishment, free exercise, and
specifies that acts of worship will normally occur inside the temples,
with such exceptions as provided by "the relevant reglamentary law."
The relevant reglamentary law is the Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y
Culto Publico, which I quoted.

That's a different issue. But when you present a situation which no
longer holds as if it did hold you are misrepresenting and/or
committing an error. If you wanted to say "it used to...", that's
fine. I corrected your errors of fact.

If you don't like it, try to get the facts right on your first try.

--
================================================== ====================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
================================================== ====================

Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu

shoko asahara

Thanks, I have just downloaded a copy of the amended constitution.