Ah okay, you're going to have to bear with me. How are they enforced? Please note I'm not being disingenous or trying to be a smart-arse, that's a question and not a trap. I'm ignorant of how they are enforced and would appreciate being informed for my own benefit.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

What if one of those preset rules is called a first amendment that specifically precludes some of our (federal) legislators from making any rules regarding religion. Doesn't that imply that religionist have to set and abide by their religious beliefs (as a form of rules)?

I am pretty sure that the 5th amendment is invoked quite regularly. It is usually enforced by the courts.

The first amendment doesn't let you do whatever your religion tells you to do. Otherwise, people would steal and murder because their religion says it is okay.

There is no such thing as a religion that says stealing and murder are OK.

__________________
United We Stand.

Religion is just faith-based practices. Anyone can create a religion.

I had a look at it - thanks for the reference, the "due process" amendment, yes, excellent point you made.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

It always depends on implementation. If a hypothetical religion had a commandment that states that. stealing and false witness bearing are fine; then those religionists could steal and deceive each other to their utmost, and freely practiced faith.

The private (religious) justice system could have primary jurisdiction in those matters.

Any citizen would always have recourse to our glorious Bill of Rights, if they no longer have sufficient faith in their religion.

But what you are suggesting already can be done, I believe. You can sign a contract saying "I am allowing them to do to me whatever they want as long as they follow the religion. I give up any rights to bring them to trial as long as they follow that religion." Then, you could have a religious sub-state inside the official legal state, as long as those people only operate within their group of people, since those that have not signed that agreement would still be legally immune from harm by the religionists.

I don't know what the case is in the US but in Australia you can't consent to be a victim of a crime nor can you waive common law or statutory rights in the terms of a contract.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Well, that sounds like bullshit. You probably can't do it in the US either, although I can't imagine why. For instance, rape is only rape if someone doesn't consent. And I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to commit assisted suicide.

Greetings and Felicitations,

Non Sequitur. Rape can still be prosecuted even when consent is given. There are many people who do not have the ability to give consent. A child could give tacit consent to sexual intercourse with an adult but that would still be rape because the child is not capable of making such decisions. In addition, rape is a crime of power where the victim is under the power of the assailant. If a rape victim is forced to sign a consent to sex it is still a crime because the consent was given under duress.

I would also like to point out the existence of date rape as an example.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Which would, by definition, mean they did not consent.Consent is either given or it is not. You can't say someone gave consent, but he cannot give consent.It would be a crime becuse someone forced another person to sign a contract.Disagreements about whether someone under 16 should be allowed to give consent or not, the fact is that someone who cannot give consent cannot give consent. You can't say that someone who cannot give consent gave consent.

I am not sure you can claim that morals are your own. Would we be discussing morals and ethics, if religions didn't exist?

I suppose, the difference being, that a secular state would not be concerned with law based on religious beliefs (i.e. adultery, etc.). The state would be saving money on those enforcement costs, by leaving it to the religion to punish those crimes according to their faith.