It Is Unconstitutional To Ban Jews & Christians From Owning Slaves

Argument 1:The First amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". For Congress to prohibit something that is a part of a religion even for the members of that religion then the members of that religion are effectively being placed under the rule of a law that respects the practices of religions that don't have that as their practice. You are effectively forcing Christians to follow the religious practices of religions that don't condone slavery, and that's wrong. Freedom of religion is the most basic and cherished freedom that we have in this country. To prohibit Christians from owning slaves is a violation against their freedom of religion, as it is for Jews whose teachings also condone the practice of slavery.Con brings up animal sacrifice and circumcision as other things that would have to be protected freedom of religion for Jews and Christians, including animal sacrifice and circumcision. As it stands the Supreme Court has found animal sacrifice to be constitutionally protected in the case, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Circumcision is widely practiced in America already.As for burning whores to death I'm talking about freedom of religion, not enforcement of religion. It is part of Christian and Jewish religion to own slaves, to sacrifice animals, and to circumcize. While it does talk about burning whores to death, the context of this is as a government-run function. For the government to impose a sentence of burning to death on all whores just because of Christianity or Judaism would be an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. Slavery on the other hand is brought up as a privately-run function that the Judeo-Christian God sanctions, and therefore for the sake of constitutional religious liberty we need to allow bonafide Jews and Christians to own slaves. Argument #2:There is no compelling state interest in banning slavery. People holding slaves does nothing to directly impact the stability of the state. In fact, allowing the sale and trade of slaves(within the rules of what ever religion a person is a part of that allows slavery) could open up a new market, spurring growth and investment. Laws against slavery are based entirely off of moral arguments, not any compelling state interest.Argument #3:Con claims the "right to privacy" is enumerated in the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I don't see the words "right to privacy" in there. Argument #4:It doesn't matter that the 13th amendment prohibits slavery. That just means that people should require a bonafide religious reason to own slaves. If the 13th amendment was meant to prohibit slavery regardless of the rights in the 1st amendment or any other amendment coming before it it would say so. There is precedent for this interpretation. The 21st amendment, legalizing alcohol contains a clause explicitly repealing the 18th amendment. The 13th contains no such clause for the 1st or any other preceding amendment, so we can assume the intent was that the 13th amendment would have less power than the preceding amendments.Argument #5:Con mentions the Declaration of Independence. I will first point out that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution, nor was that ever its purpose. Its purpose was to declare independence from Britain.Second, even though it says "all men are created equal" this line was written in part by men who owned slaves. Clearly the intended interpretation is not anti-slavery. One can be a slave and still be "equal" in that the slave lives under the same laws as the master just that some of the laws may say things specific for the role of slave. Laws already have specific differences for people in the military. We do not say this goes against all men being created equal.As for justice, welfare, and liberty. It is a huge injustice to deny Christians their religious liberty to own slaves. It can not be good for our nation's welfare if the 1st amendment is ignored. Con talks about justice, welfare, and liberty. But the real injustice is that Christians and Jews are being prevented from effectively following their own religious beliefs. This is bigotry and lacks respect for diversity. Even if we do not understand why Christianity and Judaism allow people to own slaves we should still be tolerant of this and allow them to follow their respective faiths in owning slaves. Argument #6:Con is focusing on mere details of lifestyle rather than lifestyle as a whole. Slaves, if we still had them today would have the advantages of running water and electricity and a roof over their heads. Many Africans don't have that. Lifestyle isn't about whether or not you are getting paid, it is about how life is generally.It is a better lifestyle to be a slave who has everything he needs than a person who has almost nothing but is 'free'. Most Africans these days aren't really free, they are slaves to their environment and circumstances.Vote Pro! Vote to restore religious liberty and to help promote some good in the lives of the poor of the world by affording them the opportunity to sell themselves as slaves to good Christian and Jewish families in the U.S. who want to take care of them.