Talk:Reynolds v. United States

message: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1863-1889.html gives a date of 1879 for Reynolds v. United States. Some references give 1878.  The case was reargued.  Does anyone have a solid reference for the dates in the case? Nereocystis 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are dates correct for decided and argued?

message: A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal.  Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major restructuring proposal 

message: Its quote of Thomas Jefferson is incomplete and seems biased against the Supreme Court.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States  In the original delivered opinion, The court specifically mentioned several times man's civil duty to society.  Although Mr. Jefferson stated "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" and therefore ""the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions," he also stated immediately after that "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
So although "The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action,"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reynolds_v._United_States&action=edit§ion=new it is important to include courts opinion that "[Congress] was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
With the court's test to civil duty left out, it can easily mislead readers to believe the Supreme Court was biased and the right of religious freedom in US is only limited to opinion/belief and does not extend to exercise of one's belief.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgigga (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court's decision under Religious Duty Arguement is incomplete 

message: I just replaced text that said that Reynolds had been acquitted in an earlier trial. Although there was a book citation, this statement is unlikely as it would violate the U.S. law principal of double jeopardy. I found contemporary newspaper sources that said that Reynolds was convicted on April 1, 1875, but I only cited The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which notes that an earlier conviction was overturned. An overturned conviction is very different from an acquittal in U.S. law! Ginkgo100talk 02:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overturned conviction, not acquittal 

message: There is at least 2 case with title Reynolds v. United States, while the 2012 case is less notable it is none the less a case in the supreme court so I think there should be of it somewhere in the article. I am not sure what should be done in this issue. Find the opinion for the newer case here https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-6086_2b8e.pdf Elithanathile (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynolds v. United States, 565 U.S. 432 (2012) exists. Should we change the title to note this is the 1800s case and there is a newer one? 

message: Funny how the argument is "well YOUR religious beliefs could include any ol crazy thing, but we can still enact common law", which is basically just to say that 1A doesn't apply to your religious beliefs if I find them to be disgusting, or in this case if the more common Christian sects do, which is precisely what 1A was trying to protect against. 98.156.185.48 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infanticide, incest, polygamy, etc