Religious Liberty now allows some to be Above the Law

a reply to: xuenchen

I thought the 1st Amendment applies equally to everybody?

The Constitution guarantees the right to religious belief, not the right to practice any belief, as Judge Scalia pointed out in his infamous "Peyote ruling", which is why the RFRA was authored in the first place.

In rejecting the men's claim that Oregon's law barring peyote use under all circumstances violates their religious freedom, Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, said that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals to break the law: "We have never held that an individual's beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate." He said it would be "courting anarchy" to create exceptions every time a reli gious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.
www.publiceye.org...

a reply to: windword

What about The Free Exercise Clause?

What laws got broken in this case?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

What about The Free Exercise Clause?

What laws got broken in this case?

How was hobby lobby harmed by offering medical insurance to its employees? How can hobby lobby forbid its employees from using a lawful product? Oh it took a politicized supreme court!!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

What about The Free Exercise Clause?

What laws got broken in this case?

What case? What laws respect a religion or prohibit its practice?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

What about The Free Exercise Clause?

What laws got broken in this case?

What case? What laws respect a religion or prohibit its practice?

What case?

The one in the OP.

a reply to: xuenchen

Okay. I wasn't sure if you were talking about the Hobby Lobby case, the Peyote case or the Child Labor case.

How do you see a subpoena, asking the witness to tell the truth, as being a violation of his religious expression? Do you think that churches should be exempt from child labor laws?

a reply to: windword

How do you see a subpoena, asking the witness to tell the truth, as being a violation of his religious expression? Do you think that churches should be exempt from child labor laws?

How did this case address all that?

Did this guy have a lawyer present a case?

The whole point is how the courts and the lawyers "see" it.

a reply to: xuenchen

The judge made it clear that he based his ruling on the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling and the RFRA, not the Constitution. As Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court already ruled, the Constitution doesn't protect the right to practice any religion, if doing so breaks a law.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

How do you see a subpoena, asking the witness to tell the truth, as being a violation of his religious expression? Do you think that churches should be exempt from child labor laws?

How did this case address all that?

Did this guy have a lawyer present a case?

The whole point is how the courts and the lawyers "see" it.

Why not just admit it's a problem instead of continuing to ask a bunch of questions which you could easily have answered yourself in the first place. It's almost like you're trying to misdirect attention away from the whole problem with some lazy, directionless, pointless questions dealing with either easily answered questions or questions about minor details.

It's been shown repeatedly that this is probably just the start of a bad trend which is sure to continue. Each little step just slightly more than the last until we live in a Nation ruled by Religious Interpretive Law. I mean can you honestly imagine anything more repressive than a nation controlled by Fundementalists, regardless of which Religion it is???

The whole point behind our Forefathers stealing this land and creating our Republic in the first place was to have a system Ruled by Reason and Our Best Ideas, Open to all who want to join and Yet Still free enough for People to do and believe as they choose. The only way to Protect Religious Liberty is to stop any one Religion from having authority.

a reply to: mOjOm

Interestingly, the magistrate in the original matter, used precedents from the Employment Div., Dept of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith because neither party was arguing from the "...application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993"

The District Court argued that using Smith was an err and that the RFRA should have been applied. Mr. Steed's arguments were found to be of a sincere religious nature. The argument of the petitioner in this case failed to persuade that the State should have absolute power over an individual to be compelled into divulging information that is held as a belief protected under their First Amendment protections.

The District Court (along with every court in this country) will always use precedents and so will any side of the argument if it is in their favor. Mr. Steed (or his legal representation) clearly won this battle in regards to how the courts view this portion of the law.

originally posted by: mOjOm
It's been shown repeatedly that this is probably just the start of a bad trend which is sure to continue.

I don't think there has been a clear path laid, but I am not disparaging your belief on that matter. I think the precedents set forth isn't as bad as one thinks if they actually read the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court opinion.

I mean can you honestly imagine anything more repressive than a nation controlled by Fundementalists, regardless of which Religion it is???

Religion, in the purest sense of the word can encompass even the secular.

The whole point behind our Forefathers stealing this land

Red herring, but lets stay on point no?

...a system Ruled by Reason and Our Best Ideas, Open to all who want to join and Yet Still free enough for People to do and believe as they choose.

So long as it is what you want? Or others want? Isn't that what Hobby Lobby was about? To "do and believe as they choose"? They "believe" that the small subset of contraceptives (notice I say small subset because they offer plans that still allow contraceptives) violated their beliefs and forcing them to adhere to the State's mandate to provide such clearly didn't allow them to "believe as they choose"....

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're right. Religion has been forcing its way into the law for many years. They should be allowed to break the law in any way they see fit. It's their religion, after all. It stands ABOVE the law. Religious people are above the law.

I've known you to be a better poster than this BH. I understand your angst, but I believe you are allowing this to get the better of you. Did you read the District Court's ruling and its reasoning behind it?

It isn't so much about the act, it is the compulsory act of the State forcing someone to testify to certain facts under threat of the State. I would say that they got it right in this instance.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
I don't think there has been a clear path laid, but I am not disparaging your belief on that matter. I think the precedents set forth isn't as bad as one thinks if they actually read the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court opinion.

Oh I've read it, debated it, argued over it....I've done everything but accept it as anything other than a sneaky way for corporations to avoid following the law using Religion as an excuse. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. Feel free to check out the other threads about it that I've made or participated in if you'd like. I'm not beating that horse again as it pertains to HL and the birth control issue though, I've had my fill.

Religion, in the purest sense of the word can encompass even the secular.

I respect your opinion, however I disagree that any Religion which is currently "in play" at the moment could be considered "Pure" in any sense of the word or similar to what you describe. Religious Tolerance or Acceptance toward anything other than it's own restrictive Dogma is all but impossible to find in today's divisive world.

I also see no need for such a change being that we already had a Secular Gov. that Protected Religious Freedoms already and for all Religions equally. That also included Protections From Religious Activities toward other people and other Religions as well. That was until some Hard Right Fund. Christian Sects. decided that this was a Christian Nation only and demanded Exemptions from Laws and the Right to Control Government Policy.

Red herring, but lets stay on point no?

I don't see the reason to avoid the fact that we conquered this land from it's native people and remade it to what it is now. I'm not judging the merit of it. I'm just illustrating what effort was taken to make it happen. But we can drop it if you'd like since it was never meant to be part of the conversation itself.

So long as it is what you want? Or others want? Isn't that what Hobby Lobby was about? To "do and believe as they choose"? They "believe" that the small subset of contraceptives (notice I say small subset because they offer plans that still allow contraceptives) violated their beliefs and forcing them to adhere to the State's mandate to provide such clearly didn't all them to "believe as they choose"....

Again, this isn't about the HL birth control issue. At it's core it's about the difference between Religious Liberty to follow your faith and the claim that such Liberty also includes Special Status to be exempt from Laws that should be applied equally to everyone.

It's like the phrase, "Your Right to swing your Fist ends at the Tip of My Nose." Or perhaps even, "You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose." Ever heard them or something similar??? They make good examples of how Our Freedoms have a limit once they cross the line into reducing the freedom of another. That's where the Protections come in. The idea being that we all get to be free to pursue our own path while also being protected from being trampled by the path of another.

Giving special Rights to anyone based upon Religious Interpretation which allows them to act and behave in an illegal manner goes against the idea of Equal Protection of the Law. In this case it could mean having to allow for some to be allowed to practice Illegal Child Labor and possibly Forced Marriage of Minors without them being accountable.

If you want to argue that Religious Freedom should allow such activities then go right ahead. But you are going to have to argue that Public Stoning, Beheading and many more horrible Acts based upon Religious Law should also be outside any legal restriction. Is that what you're suggesting is a Theocratic Nation for America???

originally posted by: mOjOm
Oh I've read it, debated it, argued over it....

Wasn't asking you to beat a dead horse; nor drive this thread to that discussion.

I respect your opinion, however I disagree that any Religion which is currently "in play" at the moment could be considered "Pure" in any sense of the word or similar to what you describe. Religious Tolerance or Acceptance toward anything other than it's own restrictive Dogma is all but impossible to find in today's divisive world.

I fear that you have mis-comprehended my statement. When I say the "purest sense" it doesn't mean that religion itself, is pure; but that the ideal of "religion" is not confined to the faithful. A secular idea can in itself, become a religion of sorts.

I also see no need for such a change being that we already had a Secular Gov. that Protected Religious Freedoms already and for all Religions equally. That also included Protections From Religious Activities toward other people and other Religions as well. That was until some Hard Right Fund. Christian Sects. decided that this was a Christian Nation only and demanded Exemptions from Laws and the Right to Control Government Policy.

I don't see the reason to avoid the fact that we conquered this land from it's native people and remade it to what it is now. I'm not judging the merit of it. I'm just illustrating what effort was taken to make it happen. But we can drop it if you'd like since it was never meant to be part of the conversation itself.

I call out the red herring because it is such. It leads to no value or coherence to the subject at hand. I am not going to deny nor debate it here. I call it as I see it. I respect that you recognized that fact.

Again, this isn't about the HL birth control issue. At it's core it's about the difference between Religious Liberty to follow your faith and the claim that such Liberty also includes Special Status to be exempt from Laws that should be applied equally to everyone.

With such a ruling, that application is applied equally no? It becomes precedents as soon as the ink dries on the Court's opinion. I am not advocating that one faith is able to proclaim that they are above the law, but neither does Hobby Lobby -- if you believe it does, than I would like to see the argument.

Ever heard them or something similar???

Yes I have. Apt quotes but I do not see how they pertain to the argument presented in this case.

Giving special Rights to anyone...

I truncated your quote here for a specific reason. Special 'rights' have been given out for over a half century now; in some cases, longer. I am not saying that is right, but to highlight this as some weird contortion of Governmental application of recent memory is denying that the Government has been picking winners and losers ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts under President Adams.

In this case it could mean having to allow for some to be allowed to practice Illegal Child Labor and possibly Forced Marriage of Minors without them being accountable.

This decision and Hobby Lobby do not -- I repeat -- do not, allow any religion to protect (or engage in) illegal child labor. You didn't even read the ruling did you? Here it is, so we can discuss it on an equal playing field.....

THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES ) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, v. PARAGON CONTRACTORS, CORP, et. al.

If you want to argue that Religious Freedom should allow such activities then go right ahead.

I haven't though...

But you are going to have to argue that Public Stoning, Beheading and many more horrible Acts based upon Religious Law should also be outside any legal restriction.

Why would I have to argue those points? You are placing an emotional plea into this that attempts me (or any other poster) to divert from the fact that the State (Government) was denied the ability to compel a citizen from being strong-armed into testifying. To me that is a win for the People.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

After discussing this subject I'm trying to see this from your perspective as much as possible. You are obviously intelligent and I understand information you've provided. I am assuming you're a strong constitutionalist with a good understanding of law as well. So I have a couple questions to help me understand your argument.

Let me explain what I think your argument is and that way you can correct where I may be mistaken.

Your argument is that due to the fact there is no immediate harm or threat and there are possibly alternate avenues to obtain the same information without infringing on his Rights (I'm coming back to this in a minute.), the government cannot justify compelling someone to testify when it conflicts with their beliefs.

Now, as for the Rights and the Beliefs. Do you consider an conscientious objection not grounded in Religion but just as strongly held to also be a valid and comparable argument?? All things being equal??

If they fail to obtain the info from alternate sources, is it then allowed for the court to compel the party to testify???

Oh where to start....
First this is the FLDS church, not the LDS church. Big difference.

Second, if the first amendment applied to money, why did the first money in the US reference God on it (and it still does to this day, but now it does so twice)? If it applied to religious ideas in government buildings, why did the Presidents (including Thomas Jefferson) attend their church meetings inside the house of representatives?

Third, even bill maher admits islam and Christianity are so completely and fundamentally different, they should not be compared.

Lastly, your (atheists) lack of faith has no bearing on the teachings of Christ nor the truth contained in them. Your inability to believe in them is not a failing on their part but an exhibit in the weakness of human intelligence.

a reply to: Dfairlite
In God we trust was added to our currency in 1956 under the McCarthyism madness.

"In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.

wiki

a reply to: LDragonFire

You're correct! However, Annuit Coeptis, the words on the great seal of the US, is also on our currency. The great seal was designed in 1782 by one of the framers (not signers, framers) of the constitution.

According to Merriam Webster, Annuit Coeptis is latin for:
"He (God) has approved our beginnings"

www.merriam-webster.com...

So you're saying the framers wouldn't want God to be used on the dollar but they were OK with God being used on everything else? Ok. Good luck with that argument.

But my guess is that you didn't know about the other reference to God. Ignorance is Bliss!!!!

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Oh where to start....
First this is the FLDS church, not the LDS church. Big difference.

Yah, I'm sure their nothing alike. After all one of them has an "F" at the beginning!! lol

Second, if the first amendment applied to money, why did the first money in the US reference God on it (and it still does to this day, but now it does so twice)? If it applied to religious ideas in government buildings, why did the Presidents (including Thomas Jefferson) attend their church meetings inside the house of representatives?

What's the point of this in respect to the topic exactly??

Third, even bill maher admits islam and Christianity are so completely and fundamentally different, they should not be compared.

Oh well, if Bill Maher said it than it must be some kind of Universal Truth, right???

Lastly, your (atheists) lack of faith has no bearing on the teachings of Christ nor the truth contained in them. Your inability to believe in them is not a failing on their part but an exhibit in the weakness of human intelligence.

Since when did this become a discussion about Faith??? Again, stay on topic.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah, I mean, one of them (FLDS) actively practices polygamy, sells young girls into pre-arranged marriages, and doesn't believe in most of the scriptures written by their common founding prophet (irony)? Meanwhile the other (LDS) doesn't practice polygamy or sell young girls into pre-arranged marriages, and does believe in the scriptures written by their common founding prophet. But yeah, they're basically the same. Deny ignorance?

As for god on currency, that was brought up in the discussion by Krazysh0t. If you're not going to follow the discussion you probably shouldn't talk to people about being on topic.

The bill maher portion was an example of a prominent atheist acknowledging a fact that many in this thread would like to (and have expressly) deny.

The last part was off topic, I'll give you that one, I mostly just put it in there to ruffle your feathers. Mission accomplished.

OT: But let me tell you what I see when I read your response; a lack of substance. But it pains you too much to see the facts I posted (FLDS vs. LDS, Christianity vs. Islam, Founders putting God references on the great seal) go unchallenged so you came up with a response that you felt would slide by, hopefully without anyone seeing through the smoke screen. But hey, that's just what I see when I look at it.