Is religious freedom absolute - or may there be some exception?

[TU Curmudgeon]

For starters the first 4 words of the first are "Congress shall make no law". That is a limitation.

The only amendment with no modifiers is the second. Yet for some reason congress seems to think that it's perfectly OK to modify it any way they choose.

And, since the several STATE governments do NOT constitute "Congress" then it is within the legislative purview of the STATE governments to "establish religion" and legislate so as to fetter "the free exercise thereof".

PS - You do know that, even after the US constitution was ratified, several of the stated DID have "established religions" and DID have legislation on the books which fettered "the free exercise thereof", don't you?

 

[Gatsby]

Sorry, I am talking about "fact" and not "legal terminology".

"I have a right to keep and bear arms."
(this is a "right")​

and

"I have revocable permission to keep and bear arms provided that I _[fill in the blank]_."
(this is a "privilege")​

do NOT mean the same thing.

You can call a "privilege" a "right" all you want to but that does not convert it into one any more than calling a dog's tail a leg converts it into a five legged animal.

The government can and does limit your right to bear arms. If you are under 18, or a convicted felon, or mentally incompetent, your right will be restricted.

Similarly, if your freedom of religion calls for human sacrifice, or polygamy, or denying your child cancer treatment, your right will be restricted.

I'm not sure why you think this is controversial. This is how US law has always operated.

 

[HonestJoe]

You mean that, when "The Constitution" says

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof"​

it really means

"Congress shall make no law respecting ... the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof UNLESS Congress thinks that there is a valid secular purpose for doing so and can convince the courts to go along with it."​

It isn't quite that simple but in practice something along those lines applies (and always has). No rights are unconditional. There are legal limitations to free speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religion.

On religion, it isn't a case of specifically targeting a religion (or even religion in general) but government introducing legitimate laws which apply to everyone equally but which some religious people might object to. In most cases (same-sex marriage being one), some non-religious people have a strong objection and some religious people are entirely supportive so laws preventing discrimination in relation to same-sex marriage isn't even a specific religious freedom issue.

One the other hand, the idea that religious people (in practice, Christian people) should have special exemptions from laws that the rest of us have to follow (regardless of any personal moral objections) would, of course, be discrimination on grounds of religion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

nope...there is a famous phrase here in the US...your rights end where my rights begin...can you figure out what that means?

Interesting attempt at diversion.

Please tell me how a felon's right to vote interferes with your right to vote or how a felon's right to keep and bear arms interferes with your right to keep and bear arms or how a Muslim woman's wearing of a burka interferes with your not wearing a burka.

[NOTE - Personally I think that the burka is an incredibly stupid article of clothing that is totally unsuited for wear in the modern world. But, then again, I also think that, for some people, Speedos

are incredibly stupid articles of clothing that are totally unsuited for wear in the modern world (but I don't necessarily want to see them legislatively banned [just laughing {out loud} at the people who do wear them is a sufficiency]).

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Is religious freedom absolute - or may there be some exception?

Suppose there are religions that demand things of their believers that go contrary to the law of the land. What then?

As long as people are not harming others because of their religions, freedom must be absolute.

 

[AGENT J]

Exactly. See Paul's letter to the Roman Christians requesting that they submit to the governing authorities - which happened to be Nero at the time of Paul's letter. Not only did Nero kill Christians in the most horrific manner he also did it for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. Yet Paul - who was most likely ultimately killed by Nero - continually and without wavering implored Christians to submit to same.

I'm a Christian, but when today's Christians go snowflake and claim persecution when they're blocked by Twitter, meh, not a lot of sympathy out of me.

Me too and I agree. ZERO sympathy

There's nothing in America that violates my actual religious freedom, my rights are solidly protected.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The government can and does limit your right to bear arms. If you are under 18, or a convicted felon, or mentally incompetent, your right will be restricted.

Similarly, if your freedom of religion calls for human sacrifice, or polygamy, or denying your child cancer treatment, your right will be restricted.

I'm not sure why you think this is controversial. This is how US law has always operated.

I don't know why you think that I think that reality is controversial.

Words have both "meaning" and "semantic content".

The word "rights" implies that it is something that can NOT be taken away and, as you have pointed out, that simply isn't the case in the US. In fact, those items that are called "rights" are, in fact, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" ( a phrase that is, ex necessitas, included in many constitutions written after the US constitution (where the "Founding Fathers", being educated men, "took it as written" when drafting the US constitution) was written.

A more appropriate word would be "privileges" but even more appropriate that that would be "essential freedoms" - because those are the "freedoms" that are "essential" if your society is going to be the type of society that you want it to be. In a different type of society, some of those might well NOT be "essential freedoms" and there are other things which, while not "essential freedoms" in the US, might well be "essential freedoms" in order to have some other type of society.

PS - If you want to refer to them as "Conditional Rights", I won't get bent all out of shape because, then, the meaning is quite clear.

 

[ClaraD]

Interesting attempt at diversion.

Please tell me how a felon's right to vote interferes with your right to vote or how a felon's right to keep and bear arms interferes with your right to keep and bear arms or how a Muslim woman's wearing of a burka interferes with your not wearing a burka.

[NOTE - Personally I think that the burka is an incredibly stupid article of clothing that is totally unsuited for wear in the modern world. But, then again, I also think that, for some people, Speedos

View attachment 67345068​

are incredibly stupid articles of clothing that are totally unsuited for wear in the modern world (but I don't necessarily want to see them legislatively banned [just laughing {out loud} at the people who do wear them is a sufficiency]).

federal law doesn't prohibit felons from voting...states make those laws....and most states actually allow a felon to vote.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As long as people are not harming others because of their religions, freedom must be absolute.

IOW

"You absolutely have complete conditional freedom to _[fill in the blank]_
as long as you don't violate the conditions
that someone who doesn't want to _[fill in the blank]_ has attached to it

- in which case you don't have any freedom at all."​

 

[Gatsby]

I don't know why you think that I think that reality is controversial.

Words have both "meaning" and "semantic content".

The word "rights" implies that it is something that can NOT be taken away and, as you have pointed out, that simply isn't the case in the US. In fact, those items that are called "rights" are, in fact, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" ( a phrase that is, ex necessitas, included in many constitutions written after the US constitution (where the "Founding Fathers", being educated men, "took it as written" when drafting the US constitution) was written.

A more appropriate word would be "privileges" but even more appropriate that that would be "essential freedoms" - because those are the "freedoms" that are "essential" if your society is going to be the type of society that you want it to be. In a different type of society, some of those might well NOT be "essential freedoms" and there are other things which, while not "essential freedoms" in the US, might well be "essential freedoms" in order to have some other type of society.

PS - If you want to refer to them as "Conditional Rights", I won't get bent all out of shape because, then, the meaning is quite clear.

You can argue semantics all day long, and call them rights or privileges or hippopotamuses or whatever you like. But the bottom line is: 1) There are circumstances in which laws can limit your religious practices, and 2) To do so, the state needs a compelling secular reason that's in the public interest.

Banning the burqa does not qualify, and it's not a particularly close call.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

federal law doesn't prohibit felons from voting...states make those laws....and most states actually allow a felon to vote.

So, not all Americans have the "right to vote" - but those Americans who do not have the "right to vote" are bound by the same taxation laws as those Americans who do have the "right to vote".

Whatever happened to "No taxation without representation."?

And what about the remainder of the points that I mentioned?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You can argue semantics all day long, and call them rights or privileges or hippopotamuses or whatever you like. But the bottom line is: 1) There are circumstances in which laws can limit your religious practices, and 2) To do so, the state needs a compelling secular reason that's in the public interest.

Banning the burqa does not qualify, and it's not a particularly close call.

"You can argue semantics all day long, and call them rights or privileges or hippopotamuses or whatever you like. But the bottom line is: 1) There are circumstances in which laws can limit your religious practices, ..."

Where have you seen me disputing those facts?

"... and 2) To do so, the state needs a compelling secular reason that's in the public interest."

And how does "When 'The Government' feels that it has a 'compelling secular interest that is in the public interest and can persuade the courts to go along with it'" mean that what 'The Government' thinks is a 'compelling secular interest that is in the public interest' and what you think is a 'compelling secular interest that is in the public interest' are the same thing?

You and I are in agreement that "banning the Burke Hat" does not qualify as something that meets the "compelling secular interest that is in the public interest" test, but please tell me how that would stop a government that DOES think that it DOES qualify as something that meets the "compelling secular interest that is in the public interest" test AND can convince a stacked US Supreme Court that it DOES qualify as something that meets the "compelling secular interest that is in the public interest" test from "banning the Burke Hat"?

 

[Gatsby]

And how does "When 'The Government' feels that it has a 'compelling secular interest that is in the public interest and can persuade the courts to go along with it'" mean that what 'The Government' thinks is a 'compelling secular interest that is in the public interest' and what you think is a 'compelling secular interest that is in the public interest' are the same thing?

It doesn't. Personally I often think the courts are too deferential to religious freedom cases, at the expense of secular law.

You and I are in agreement that "banning the Burke Hat" does not qualify as something that meets the "compelling secular interest that is in the public interest" test, but please tell me how that would stop a government that DOES think that it DOES qualify as something that meets the "compelling secular interest that is in the public interest" test AND can convince a stacked US Supreme Court that it DOES qualify as something that meets the "compelling secular interest that is in the public interest" test from "banning the Burke Hat"?

You are asking how to stop a law that was passed by the elected branches of government, and that the judiciary upheld as constitutional? Umm we don't. What exactly is the problem that needs to be solved?

I mean, you could elect a new legislature to repeal it. Or elect a new executive to appoint different judges. But our constitutional system does not recognize some special category of laws that need to be overturned just because you, personally, don't like them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It doesn't. Personally I often think the courts are too deferential to religious freedom cases, at the expense of secular law.

You are asking how to stop a law that was passed by the elected branches of government, and that the judiciary upheld as constitutional? Umm we don't. What exactly is the problem that needs to be solved?

I mean, you could elect a new legislature to repeal it. Or elect a new executive to appoint different judges. But our constitutional system does not recognize some special category of laws that need to be overturned just because you, personally, don't like them.

Well, we finally appear to have merged.

"The Government" if assisted by a "captive court" can pass any laws it feels like passing and those laws are going to be upheld as "constitutional" regardless of how ridiculous those findings are.

AND as long as "The Government" is appointing people to the bench based on their "political reliability" rather than their knowledge of the law, experience with the law, and personal commitment to actually upholding the law you are going to have situations that are ripe for creating a "captive court".

Strangely enough, the statutory mechanisms for the selection of members of the bench in Canada and the US are quite similar.

Where the difference arises is that the practice in Canada is to consider knowledge of the law, experience with the law, and personal commitment to actually upholding the law as being more important than "political reliability" AND the practice of having judges "work their way up" from the several provincial Supreme Courts, through the respective provincial Courts of Appeal, to the Federal Supreme Court en banc, and thence to the position of Chief Justice rather than simply appointing some political hack directly to the position at the pinnacle of the judicial system (because you know that that political hack is ALWAYS going to rule the way that you want them to rule REGARDLESS of what the facts and law are).

I guess that that's just an example of the old "Some people like vanilla, some like chocolate." philosophy (except that some of us can tell the difference between "fudge" and "feces").

 

[Gatsby]

"The Government" if assisted by a "captive court" can pass any laws it feels like passing and those laws are going to be upheld as "constitutional" regardless of how ridiculous those findings are.

Yes and if the government is taken over by North Korean spies, then we'll have a communist monarchy. If it's taken over by the Galactic Empire, then we'll build Death Stars. If it's taken over by Roman cavalry, maybe we'll go back to feeding Christians to the lions.

AND as long as "The Government" is appointing people to the bench based on their "political reliability" rather than their knowledge of the law, experience with the law, and personal commitment to actually upholding the law you are going to have situations that are ripe for creating a "captive court".

I really have no idea what you think the problem is, much less what your proposed solution is.

Strangely enough, the statutory mechanisms for the selection of members of the bench in Canada and the US are quite similar.

Where the difference arises is that the practice in Canada is to consider knowledge of the law, experience with the law, and personal commitment to actually upholding the law as being more important than "political reliability" AND the practice of having judges "work their way up" from the several provincial Supreme Courts, through the respective provincial Courts of Appeal, to the Federal Supreme Court en banc, and thence to the position of Chief Justice rather than simply appointing some political hack directly to the position at the pinnacle of the judicial system (because you know that that political hack is ALWAYS going to rule the way that you want them to rule REGARDLESS of what the facts and law are).

I guess that that's just an example of the old "Some people like vanilla, some like chocolate." philosophy (except that some of us can tell the difference between "fudge" and "feces").

I thought this thread was about religious freedom.

I really hope that everything you wrote about burqas and religious freedom wasn't just a roundabout way to get to the conclusion "The president should be more inclined to consider experience when appointing judges." Because holy shit was that a tortuous path to get there.

 

[Visbek]

Is religious freedom absolute - or may there be some exception?

Legally, there already are numerous exceptions.

For example, corporations cannot cite religious reasons to discriminate. (Entities that are designated as "religious organizations" can discriminate on the basis of religion, but that's it.)

And obviously, you can't commit illegal actions and claim a religious exemption.

Suppose there are religions that demand things of their believers that go contrary to the law of the land.
What then?

Then they'll either have to risk arrest, or not do them. E.g. you can't legally have 5 wives and justify it with a religious belief.

 

[soylentgreen]

There is a specific law for this which exists in several countries but courts a lot of controversy mainly around disinformation about the law from the religious.

That would be the anti smacking law. The name itself is a misnomer Which does not help.

But basically the law states that excuses such as religious belief in no excuse for causing harm.

An example of this is the samoan religious practice of taking the bible literally when it says spare the rod and spoil the child.

 

[Rumpel]

Legally, there already are numerous exceptions.
For example, corporations cannot cite religious reasons to discriminate. (Entities that are designated as "religious organizations" can discriminate on the basis of religion, but that's it.)
And obviously, you can't commit illegal actions and claim a religious exemption.

That's how I see it as well!

 

[AGENT J]

If the freedom of religion is not absolute, then it should be possible to ban the burka, as it is against equal rights for women and men.

Still waiting for you to answer how a person wearing a burka is against equal rights in America?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Still waiting for you to answer how a person wearing a burka is against equal rights in America?

Do not hold your breath whilst waiting for it.

 

[Rumpel]

Now 18 out of 20 say:

There may be some exceptions​

 

[AGENT J]

Now 18 out of 20 say:

There may be some exceptions​

now 5 days later and over 70 posts we are still waiting for you to support this claim below lol

If the freedom of religion is not absolute, then it should be possible to ban the burka, as it is against equal rights for women and men.

How does a person wearing a burka violate anybody's equal rights.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

now 5 days later and over 70 posts we are still waiting for you to support this claim below lol



How does a person wearing a burka violate anybody's equal rights.

I believe that there are some people who think that they have a "constitutional right" to watch a woman's tits and ass jiggle.

 

[AGENT J]

I believe that there are some people who think that they have a "constitutional right" to watch a woman's tits and ass jiggle.

sadly in the chaos of feelings and opinions are more important than facts of today, this would not surprise me