Search
How Implementing the 1st Amendment Internationally May End Religiously Incited Terrorism, Ethnic Cle
By: Joseph Bonner
The international community is scrambling to come up with a realistic solution to ending religiously incited terrorist while the answer may have been lying in the 1st Amendment all along.
The 1st Amendment guarantees "freedom of religion," however, the Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run against "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. In other words, religions are free to practice as they please, however, if a religious practice and or institution runs contrary to governmental interest, a government would be free to eliminate the freedoms granted to that religious institution.
The US has done something similar before. In the Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the vaccination of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
With national and international security at stake due to incessant terrorist attacks incited by religious organizations, governments of the world now face a compelling decision to either act or ignore what's in the best interest of their countries national security.
Even present day ethnic cleansings have been religiously incited. An example of this can be seen in Myanmar. According to the Human Rights Watch Organization, the Myanmar government shows a preference for Theravada Buddhism. "In late 2016, the army carried out a brutal crackdown on ethnic Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State, including extrajudicial killings, rape, torture, and widespread arson. Ongoing fighting between the military and ethnic armed groups has intensified in Shan and Kachin States, causing mass displacement." The Karen people of Myanmar, who are predominantly Christan, suffered the same fate by the Burmese government, with many refugees having to flee to neighboring countries including Thailand, US, and the UK.
The sad reality of religiously incited ethnic cleansing by an organization thought by the many to be known for peace, have inflicted anything but peace on their very own neighbors in the name of Buddha.
And what of the rampant horrors inflicted upon children in the name of religion? Does the government also not have a responsibility to protect them?
With hundreds of new cases each year in the US alone, the Vatican overall has been unwilling to implement policies that serve the best interest of children, paying out some 2.6 billion as it sexual abuse, from 2004-2012 in the US.
The true number of victims may very well be into the millions, however, with the churches obstruction of justice and lack of follow through when allegations have been brought to their attention, the world may neve really know how deeply entrenched in pedophilia the church is really in.
Once again, the Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run against "public morals." How many more millions of children will have to face rape and molestation at the hands of church leaders internationally before governments legally revoked the rights of these churches?
With religiously incited terrorism on the rise, religiously incited ethnic cleansing terrorizing the masses and perhaps millions of children being either raped or molested by religious leaders, the questions government officials around the world have to answer is this. Which religious practices and or activities are more likely to incite terrorist attacks? Which religious institutions have the backing of terrorist? Wich religious organizations have a history of in some way funding terrorist acts? Wich religious organization have either stood by, supported and or instigated religiously incited ethnic cleansing? Which religious organization has adopted policies that have resulted in the rape and molestation of children on a grand scale internationally? Is any given government willing to accept full responsibility before the masses for their refusal to address and put a stop to these heinous crimes against humanity to their and their citizens own demise?
Serious questions indeed that to the people deserve an honest answer to now.
