B-1 Free Exercise Clause by

matt_dimick — 2023-09-06 15:50:22 UTC

Yes, they should be exempt.

2023-09-07 15:03:51 UTC

No

thomasm1191 — 2023-09-07 15:04:18 UTC

If “conscientious objectors” or people who’ve refused to serve are exempt from military service, then why wouldn’t everyone just refuse to fight next time we need troops.

Yes

emiliee781 — 2023-09-07 15:04:33 UTC

Yes they should be exempt because if you are throwing people into a war and they aren't ready, a lot of people are going to die for a country they didn't want to die for.

belcyp961 — 2023-09-07 15:04:56 UTC

Yes they should be exempt because those who aren't prepared may cause more conflicts than any solutions.

Depends

nicholasc222 — 2023-09-07 15:04:59 UTC

I think it depends on the situation. If the country is in a place where they do not have enough soldiers and have to resort to a draft, then they should not be able to refuse, but if not, then their choice should decide weather they fight or not.

connorh999 — 2023-09-07 15:05:11 UTC

Conscientious objectors should be exempt from military service. It should be up to the government to recruit people and make people want to join the military, but anyone who doesn't want to fight for any reasons shouldn't be forced to.

matildap754 — 2023-09-07 15:05:22 UTC

I think conscientious objectors should not be exempt from military service. It is important for people to fight for their country when needed. Despite this, I think there are certain situations where some could be exempt. I see both side here.

Sarah Maxfield

2023-09-07 15:05:32 UTC

They should not have to fight in the military for our country unless it is absolutely necessary. There are a lot of people that medically and mentally cannot handle a war and or serving in general. And with that there are a lot of people willing to serve and fight for our country so we should not force the others to.

ericad313 — 2023-09-07 15:05:50 UTC

Being involved in war is a life and death situation and shouldn't be a decision to be taken lightly nor forced upon someone.

No

izraelr185 — 2023-09-07 15:05:52 UTC

There are always going to be people who don't want to join the military but when people are needed to fight to protect their country, they should be forced to. If people refused to fight then majority of people would choose no. Unless the person had a religous belief than told them no.

mckenziej979 — 2023-09-07 15:06:23 UTC

I think that they should be exempt because they should be able to choose whether they want to fight or not. If we really need people to fight in the war than we should enforce it if its truly necessary.

No

cooperd619 — 2023-09-07 15:06:26 UTC

Conscientious objectors should not be able to opt out of fighting just because they don't want. I think that most people during a war don't want to fight but they go anyway because it is what their country needs.

emmyh322 — 2023-09-07 15:06:30 UTC

yes, conscientious objectors should be allowed to choose whether they want to fight or not. War is something that has a huge impact on a person's life, and it should be a decision that someone is able to choose.

June Trammell

2023-09-07 15:06:37 UTC

They should not be forced to fight for the country, especially in modern day with the amount of volunteers in the military. We also have greater technology that allows for more advanced weaponry and may need less soldiers. If people choose not to fight on the front lines they can be beneficial back home.

50/50

augustc244 — 2023-09-07 15:06:55 UTC

I feel a bit conflicted- I feel like it depends on the severity. On one hand, I'd definitely be in the same position, where I can see their reasoning for wanting to not fight. On the other hand, I think it depends on how many soldiers they already have. I'm leaning towards no- it's a group cause, to defend both your family and the country.

ongpaingein — 2023-09-07 15:07:14 UTC

Throwing unprepared individuals into a war could lead to more losses and more distrust in the people in power that put them there. At some point though there is a mark where we wouldn't have enough troops, so it may become necessary.

Arlyt100 — 2023-09-07 15:07:18 UTC

i don't think they have to bc there are people who aren't ready to fight, and force them to go is unfair, meanwhile there are others who want to serve and fight

brooklynnc253 — 2023-09-07 15:08:04 UTC

I think it's a hard question to answer because if you let a certain group of people be exempt from military service shouldn't everyone have a choice. But ultimately, I believe that conscientious objectors should be exempt from military service whether its religious or a personal moral because many people genuinely aren't prepared to serve.

Yes/No

ethanh484 — 2023-09-07 15:09:09 UTC

In the event of a country needing to use a draft then you shouldn't be able to object to that, but if the situation isn't as bad as what is happening in Ukraine or other parts of the world then you should be able to object to joining the force. Some people may have certain skills that can take them far or already have a job that is working out for them then they shouldn't have to join.

They should be exempt.

allisonm236 — 2023-09-07 15:09:48 UTC

Why force someone to serve the military and fight if they have the right to refuse? They might not be ready, they might have religious or moral reasons, etc. There are many factors into why we shouldn't force someone to serve the military. But it also depends on whether it is an emergency or not. There is a lot of factors and arguments that can support both sides.

Carson Villata

2023-09-07 15:10:16 UTC

No. Realistically, no one wants to fight. Too bad, so sad. You are part of the country so you will defend it. If no one wants to fight, no one would be able to defend YOUR home, YOUR family, YOUR stuff. If you don't want to fight than don't complain about the consequences. The country is already short of military staff, and you will contribute by refusing to fight. Yes, wars shouldn't be happening to begin with but tell that to the person who is out to kill you.

yes

2023-09-07 15:11:35 UTC

I think war involvement should always be optional, and entirely up to the person. Sometimes it goes against belief, or just a persons wants and needs. If you don't want to be fighting the war, you shouldn't be. Plus, you have to believe in the war you are fighting to truly be there.

No

2023-09-07 15:13:03 UTC

If we have to

connorh999 — 2023-09-07 15:17:03 UTC

No.. Animals are living things so they should be protected from unnecessary death.

It depends

emiliee781 — 2023-09-07 15:17:10 UTC

I think it really depends on the religion and how they care for the animal, some religions really respect the animal before sacrifice while others don't.

No

2023-09-07 15:17:13 UTC

Animals have no way to consent to anything like this lol. Animals have been proven to experience a small range of emotions and awareness, so I believe it is cruelty. I think if a religion "requires: sacrifice, a different path should be taken.

No

cooperd619 — 2023-09-07 15:17:26 UTC

Millions of species are already on the brink of extinction due to how we treat how earth. Also, if the animal is going to waste just to be a sacrifice, there is no need to kill the animal. I don't know why we would subject any animal to that.

Possibly

izraelr185 — 2023-09-07 15:17:41 UTC

I don't personally know any religions who do this or why. I can't give a definitive answer due to this but the best insight I can give is yes because it's their beliefs so why not allow it as long as it isn't a human.

2023-09-07 15:17:55 UTC

It basically goes that a man by the name of Seeger is a pacifist who believes in a supreme being and does not want to kill for religious reasons Witch then went to the Supreme Court

matildap754 — 2023-09-07 15:18:17 UTC

I think animal sacrifice should be allowed for religious reasons. In many religions, a sacrifice is very sacred. That being said, I think it also depends on how the religion treats the animal and what they do with the animal after.

yes, and no

ethanh484 — 2023-09-07 15:18:20 UTC

Some cultures use the entire animal to show respect to the animal and don't treat it poorly. I don't think they really should be sacrificing it but it also depends on how they treat the animal and how they feel towards it.

Carson Villata

2023-09-07 15:18:37 UTC

Depends i aint tryna get in the way of someone's beliefs man😭. ok but fr it depends on how you sacrifice the animal. torture is cruel and shouldn't be done.

No

2023-09-07 15:18:38 UTC

It would violate animal rights and it’s objectively evil

2023-09-07 15:18:45 UTC

it depends because it is part of their religion, and it also depends how they use the animal for their religion but if they're treating the animal bad or hurting it, it shouldn't be allowed

No

Arlyt100 — 2023-09-07 15:18:58 UTC

I say no bc in certain religions it wouldn't be allowed so for others to do it is not okay, also why would they do this for ?

mckenziej979 — 2023-09-07 15:18:59 UTC

I think it depends on how they are treating the animals as well as why they're killing the animals.

brooklynnc253 — 2023-09-07 15:19:09 UTC

No, I don't believe animal sacrifice should be allowed for religious reasons. Animals are natural beings that should be protected.

It depends.

allisonm236 — 2023-09-07 15:19:18 UTC

It really depends on how they treat the animal. There are some religions and cultures that use every part of the animal instead of wasting it, give it a quick and peaceful death, etc. There are also some religions that consider an animal sacred such as Hindusim and cows. All cultures and religions are different but they should respect the animal in life and in death.

Sarah Maxfield

2023-09-07 15:19:21 UTC

I don't think that religions should be able to completely sacrifice an animal but people should have freedom of religion to choose what they believe in depending on the circumstance. Some religions that believe in animal sacrifice do it very respectably and use every part of the animal for their survival which should be pardoned.

sure

nicholasc222 — 2023-09-07 15:19:22 UTC

There are millions of animals that are already slaughtered each day for the use of food, clothing, money, etc. so I don't think it really makes much of a difference if the animals are also being used for religious gain as well.

Depends

ericad313 — 2023-09-07 15:19:56 UTC

I think animals shouldn't be sacrificed because they have a life too just like us humans. At the same time, humans have the right to practice religion and stopping them from sacrificing animals would be denying that right.

thomasm1191 — 2023-09-07 15:19:56 UTC

Tough to answer because not only are there many different religions, but they will all most likely have their own opinions on this topic, so while many may be against animal sacrifice, some could be for it. Id say most likely not though, as it’s never morally right to take a life.

50/50

emmyh322 — 2023-09-07 15:20:25 UTC

I think animals should be protected from any harm, and since animals have no choice in the matter humans should be respecting them. But people have the right to practice their religion.

June Trammell

2023-09-07 15:20:36 UTC

I think it depends on the circumstances, like how the animal is treated etc. However, overall I don't think it's right to sacrifice animals.

ongpaingein — 2023-09-07 15:20:45 UTC

Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, but I think most people understand there are a lot of practices in most all religions that can't really be practiced forever. This could be one of them because the animals on this earth definitely aren't going to last forever. But to be fair, it also depends how they are respecting or treating the animals.

augustc244 — 2023-09-07 15:21:17 UTC

While we constantly kill animals in order to enjoy a nice burger, a sacrifice is something I'd say I'm against. Any form of sacrifice is extreme. I'm not involved heavily in religion so I can't give the best answer, but I believe animals should only be killed if it affects people in a nourishing way. Everyone is free to express their religion, but I feel like there are other methods rather than sacrifice. Animals are already being killed at a rapid rate- I just feel like we don't need to add onto it.

Depends

noahc429 — 2023-09-07 15:21:44 UTC

I think it depends on the reason for objection and the state that the country is in. If things are seriously dire then I do not think conscientious objectors should be exempt from service. If their are only a "few" people necessary to be drafted then I think conscientious objectors should be exempt.

2023-09-07 15:21:51 UTC

No because we need to protect animals from extinction.

alexg257 — 2023-09-07 15:21:54 UTC

No, I think it's wrong sacrificing the poor animals. we barley have any animals. We should protect our animals.

belcyp961 — 2023-09-07 15:22:16 UTC

It depends on the way a religion treats and uses the animals. Some animals are sacred to a particular religion.

It depends

noahc429 — 2023-09-07 15:24:46 UTC

I think it depends on the critical status of the animal species being sacrificed and how ethical the sacrifice is. I think that animal sacrifice should be allowed for religious reasons but only if its done conscientiously with safe and humane practices in mind.

perlaestefania05 — 2023-09-07 15:26:42 UTC

No i feel like an animal shouldn’t be touched or sacrificed for religious reason.

No

emiliee781 — 2023-09-07 15:33:58 UTC

They shouldn't because not every child is religious or can afford the private schools. The $9,000 isn't going to cover half of what the cost is for the private schools, and the public schools need the money to function.

brooklynnc253 — 2023-09-07 15:34:28 UTC

Yes and no, I do believe that parents should receive vouchers from the state. Religion is a right and I believe that the state should help if that is what the family chooses. Most religious schools are very expensive to attend because they are private. Some families may not be able to afford the tuition of the school. However, I also believe that every family religious or not should receive vouchers whether it goes towards school supplies or tuition.

Yes 100%

2023-09-07 15:34:36 UTC

All kids should have whatever schooling options are available to improve their education, whether that’s public or private. I think we should be working harder to improve the average schooling experience, and be less worried about the amount of kids attending public school decreasing, as there will always be kids that can’t afford anything else.

matildap754 — 2023-09-07 15:35:03 UTC

I think it depends on the socioeconomic status of the family and where the family lives. If the family lives in an area that has access to good public schooling, I don't think this would be necessary.

Carson Villata

2023-09-07 15:35:23 UTC

It needs to be balanced but in the end its your choice because its your kids. As long as everyone in the family is happy and healthy than all is good.

ethanh484 — 2023-09-07 15:35:27 UTC

No I think the private schools are much more costly and public schools need that money.

yeah... alright

nicholasc222 — 2023-09-07 15:36:24 UTC

vouchers are a very worthwhile investment for the state because spending money on the future generations of the state to get a good education is crucial. These vouchers shouldn't just be limited to private schools though, education should have as much funding as possible weather it be private or public.

No

cooperd619 — 2023-09-07 15:36:24 UTC

I think that money for private schools should go towards the public schooling. The money is much more needed with public schools.

thomasm1191 — 2023-09-07 15:36:33 UTC

Public schooling wouldn’t be as prevalent if everyone got a voucher to go to any private school they pleased, so I’d say this could be something specific families could request to have if they wanted their kid to attend a religious school.

ericad313 — 2023-09-07 15:36:37 UTC

I think those who are religious and are of low income should recieve vouchers to send their children to religious schools. Every child deserves the right to an education and money should not have to be a barrier.

yes

Arlyt100 — 2023-09-07 15:36:39 UTC

The reason i'm saying yes is bc well if you think about it some families are very religious and sending them to a religious school would be a safer choice for their families. also we have to think about how this could help them out bc they would be helping out the kids, and that would be they could have a better chance with their education level

Sarah Maxfield

2023-09-07 15:36:47 UTC

I think that the government should give vouchers to kids that decide to venture out of public schools and go to a private school, but I also think that if those families get money, then kids going to public schools should also be able to receive those vouchers to give to the public schools because public schools are severely underfunded no matter how much the government says they give per kid it's usually less than how much you can receive from a voucher

hm

connorh999 — 2023-09-07 15:37:05 UTC

I think public schools need the money more so I will have to say no, but vouchers should still be given to people who need it.

augustc244 — 2023-09-07 15:37:11 UTC

I'd say yes, but to limit them (?). I don't think they should be handing them out left and right, but it'd be beneficial for children, to put that money and help fund the kids. If the general area has decent public schooling, I'd vote against it. So basically, yes but to balance them- balance among both private and public schooling.

emmyh322 — 2023-09-07 15:37:21 UTC

I think depending on the child, family, and income should the family receive a voucher. A lot of families can't afford a private school, but some kids aren't religious and won't want to go to a private school. I think every child deserves to have a good education to succeed in life, but the money going towards the vouchers could take away money from the public school system.

June Trammell

2023-09-07 15:37:27 UTC

I think every parent should receive vouchers from the state to send their child to any school of their choice. Including both religious schools and public schools. That way even if there isn't a tuition to pay for going to public school there is greater funding going to the public school system. If parents feel that their kid should attend a private religious they should definitely receive a voucher.

Yes

izraelr185 — 2023-09-07 15:37:44 UTC

I think every parents should recieve vouchers because education is the most important thing is a childs life. They shouldn't be held back from attending a school at all because of money.

ongpaingein — 2023-09-07 15:37:46 UTC

If that's what the family wants then they should be allowed to bring their children to a school where they'll have the best education, but at the same time it needs some sort of regulation or limit because public schools need funding too.

belcyp961 — 2023-09-07 15:37:52 UTC

I think it depends on the family and the children. Those who are religious and believe that this would be the best option for them, then yes. But for those whose who aren't super religious, then no. Religious schools most of the time are private and some families won't be able to afford the cost of tuition.

No

noahc429 — 2023-09-07 15:38:28 UTC

Sending a student to a private school instead of a public school is a choice, and one that is far more expensive. If a family chooses to send a student to a private school, they should inherently understand that the schooling will be more expensive because the education quality is different. Taxpaying school funds should be used for public schools where funds are far thinner

mckenziej979 — 2023-09-07 15:38:35 UTC

Yes because kids should be able to attend school wherever they would like to. They need to receive education for their lives whether they receive it through private or public schools.

alexg257 — 2023-09-07 15:38:39 UTC

no, kids might not have enough money for private schools. i believe the money should go to public schools

Yes and no.

allisonm236 — 2023-09-07 15:39:06 UTC

Parents should be able to receive vouchers to send their children wherever they want for education but most religious private schools are expensive and most of the vouchers don't give enough money for the parents to afford religious schools. But I also believe the child has a choice whether they want to go to a religious school or not.

perlaestefania05 — 2023-09-07 15:40:01 UTC

I feel like yes because it would be such a big help for other families who do need a voucher

perlaestefania05 — 2023-09-07 15:51:08 UTC

No, because they shouldn’t make someone join the military force I feel like they should do this if the city actually needs the help.

perlaestefania05 — 2023-09-07 15:55:06 UTC

Not sure

2023-09-07 15:58:44 UTC

i think that we should receive vouchers that equal the cost to public school and have to pay the rest

No

2023-09-25 23:31:32 UTC

Cause if they aren't forced to serve when in desperate times, than everyone I think will just refuse to serve and when in times when we need troops we wont have them.

No

brileya680 — 2023-09-25 23:43:30 UTC

Cause if they aren't forced to serve when in desperate times, than everyone I think will just refuse to serve and when in times when we need troops we wont have them.

brileya680 — 2023-09-25 23:49:20 UTC

The case basically is saying that a man named Seeger who is being convicted for refusing to be inducted into the armed forces which he would argue that he didn't have to join because of his religion and what his religion believed.

Depends

brileya680 — 2023-09-25 23:53:42 UTC

I think it really depends on how the animal is treated before they die. If they are treated with great respect and care, not saying its right, but than I could see maybe how they could be used for a sacrifice. If not treated well I think its bad.

ruling

brileya680 — 2023-09-26 00:05:13 UTC

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU

Yes and No

brileya680 — 2023-09-26 00:07:34 UTC

I think that parents should receive vouchers but not just for one type of school. They should recive then for whatever option thw child chooses for school.

Yes they should But not everyone,

2023-10-26 00:25:14 UTC

They would need a religious or moral reason why they cant fight. Not everyone can just not fight.

2023-10-26 00:37:55 UTC

The case is saying that Seager was arrested for not joining the armed forces. He didn't want to be on the armed forces because of his belief in the higher power. He argued this to the supreme court where he won.

Depends on the situation

2023-10-26 00:51:51 UTC

Yes but only in some cases. If it is a big part of their religion and it doesn't hurt anybody else. It has to be there animal and it can't be an animal that is being protected under law and t cant fit under animal cruelty.

No

2023-10-26 00:53:39 UTC

some families aren't religious and cant afford the private school amount. I think if someone wants to go to the school then they can do their own research and pick the school right for them and their family.