Random News Observations

[hblask 1]

Unless that mission conflicts with the constitution and/or Federal law. Persecution doesn't mean not letting you do whatever you want. Sorry.

Freedom of religion IS in the Constitution; hence, a law that forces some other version of religion on somebody conflicts with the Constitution.

[brvheart 1,752]

awesome.ps. Continuing this debate is stupid. Let's just wait for the Supreme Court decision.

[hblask 1]

It's sad you can't see why. Do you think we should let Muslims institute community Sharia Laws because those beliefs behind them existed for a long time?

For all people who agree to be bound by Sharia Laws, yes. Are you saying we *shouldn't* let consenting adults make agreements about their religious conduct?

[hblask 1]

The wider you make these religious freedom exceptions for Christianity, the wider they become for all religions. Keep that in mind.

And vice versa. That's exactly the point of our Constitution.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

they banned providing food and medicine to the poor?

The Catholic Church is exercising its mission by providing food and clothing to the needy. They also run hospitals and schools throughout the world. The government gave these people a choice. The choice is ignore your religious convictions and basic beliefs and practices, or pay a large unaffordable fine. If they can do neither of these, then they will have to abandon these missions altogether. So yes, in effect the government is banning the Catholic Church(among others) from exercising it's mission of over a thousand years. Caine and Vb are saying the govt has the right to do this on the same grounds as it has to prevent bigamy and virgin sacrifice.PS I actually don't have a problem with bigamy, as long as all involved are consenting and of age. I don't think it is an appropriate practice, but if everyone involved consents, can you really stop them in practice anyway?

[vbnautilus 48]

I Love the mocking and condescension from people who are comparing bigamy and virgin sacrifice with providing food and medicine for the poor.Yes, silly me, those are exactly the same thing.

According to your interpretation of the constitution they are the same thing. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of religion, and if so what are those limits and how does the law decide?

[CaneBrain 95]

For all people who agree to be bound by Sharia Laws, yes. Are you saying we *shouldn't* let consenting adults make agreements about their religious conduct?

Not if they conflict with the law of the land.

[CaneBrain 95]

Freedom of religion IS in the Constitution; hence, a law that forces some other version of religion on somebody conflicts with the Constitution.

Nope. See the case DJ cited. The law on how far freedom of religion extends is pretty cut and dried.

[vbnautilus 48]

Every law conflicts with somebody's religion.

[Balloon guy 158]

Every law conflicts with somebody's religion.

Copyright laws?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

According to your interpretation of the constitution they are the same thing. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of religion, and if so what are those limits and how does the law decide?

I have already said yes, and I just used the length of time the Catholics have been exercising their mission as an example that they aren't trying to circumvent any laws out of convenience as other religions have tried. I never said it should be the only factor in determining anything, I simply stated it should be considered when trying to determine what constitutes exercise of religion. Again, I never said it should be the only thing considered. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of government? The founders did, that is why we have the bill of rights. The threshold is on you, if you seek to limit exercise of religion then you need to provide good reasons why. I would think violation of other peoples right to life would be one, which would cover virgin sacrifice.

[vbnautilus 48]

Copyright laws?

Several native American religions don't believe in personal property.

[Balloon guy 158]

Several native American religions don't believe in personal property.

Do they believe in gambling compacts?

[vbnautilus 48]

I have already said yes, and I just used the length of time the Catholics have been exercising their mission as an example that they aren't trying to circumvent any laws out of convenience as other religions have tried. I never said it should be the only factor in determining anything, I simply stated it should be considered when trying to determine what constitutes exercise of religion. Again, I never said it should be the only thing considered. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of government? The founders did, that is why we have the bill of rights. The threshold is on you, if you seek to limit exercise of religion then you need to provide good reasons why. I would think violation of other peoples right to life would be one, which would cover virgin sacrifice.

I still have no idea why you think a longstanding tradition of virgin sacrifice should be illegal. The limits are clear in the other direction: we can not make a law that is aimed at a specific religion. The law we are discussing does not single out religious institutions. The spirit of the bill of rights also requires that no religion be given any preference either. They are two sides of the same coin. The law can not be selectively applied based on religion, which is what you want.

[hblask 1]

Not if they conflict with the law of the land.

So your view of the Constitution is that laws are only unconstitutional until they become laws?

[hblask 1]

According to your interpretation of the constitution they are the same thing. Do you think there are any limits to what one can do in the name of religion, and if so what are those limits and how does the law decide?

The limits are what the law should be for all cases: do what you want as long as you are not actively harming/cheating/swindling others. Religions should not be able to do those things any more than anyone else; fortunately no real religions include those things anyway.

[hblask 1]

Nope. See the case DJ cited. The law on how far freedom of religion extends is pretty cut and dried.

The errors of the past are not really justification for future errors.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I still have no idea why you think a longstanding tradition of virgin sacrifice should be illegal. The limits are clear in the other direction: we can not make a law that is aimed at a specific religion. The law we are discussing does not single out religious institutions. The spirit of the bill of rights also requires that no religion be given any preference either. They are two sides of the same coin. The law can not be selectively applied based on religion, which is what you want.

No, this law effects the free exercise of religion and for no good reason. Killing another human being would be a good reason to limit a religious practice. It would also be a good reason to limit the practice of abortion. I clearly stated that virgin sacrifice should be illegal because it involves the killing of another human being. Are you being serious? I have no idea why you think a law requiring virgin sacrifice shouldn't be passed even if the population is overwhelmingly opposed to such a law.

[vbnautilus 48]

No, this law effects the free exercise of religion and for no good reason. Killing another human being would be a good reason to limit a religious practice. It would also be a good reason to limit the practice of abortion. I clearly stated that virgin sacrifice should be illegal because it involves the killing of another human being. Are you being serious?

You're just singling out killing and saying that's a reason for a limit on religious practice, but there's no principle here. WHY is it ok to limit religion in certain ways but not in others? What distinguishes a permissible limit from an impermissible one? It seems that you are only able to apply your own religious rules: killing is bad, contraception is bad. I'm using the virgin sacrifice as an extreme example that your interpretation of the 1st amendment allows. It's extreme on purpose, for clarity's sake. It's supposed to make things easier. For some reason this form of argument is completely unintelligible to certain people. This is the topic of the rant that brvheart almost sent me into last week. I have now decided based on this interaction that I will definitely be writing that rant. Anyways, the people of this country through their representatives decided that adequate health care consists of providing certain things, but you want this law to apply inconsistently depending on religious belief. Here's what Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the precursor to the 1st ammendment: "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."The law we are discussing does not affect anyone differently on account of his religious opinions -- but you would like it to.

I have no idea why you think a law requiring virgin sacrifice shouldn't be passed even if the population is overwhelmingly opposed to such a law.

Huh?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

You're just singling out killing and saying that's a reason for a limit on religious practice, but there's no principle here. WHY is it ok to limit religion in certain ways but not in others? What distinguishes a permissible limit from an impermissible one? It seems that you are only able to apply your own religious rules: killing is bad, contraception is bad. I'm using the virgin sacrifice as an extreme example that your interpretation of the 1st amendment allows. It's extreme on purpose, for clarity's sake. It's supposed to make things easier. For some reason this form of argument is completely unintelligible to certain people. This is the topic of the rant that brvheart almost sent me into last week. I have now decided based on this interaction that I will definitely be writing that rant. Anyways, the people of this country through their representatives decided that adequate health care consists of providing certain things, but you want this law to apply inconsistently depending on religious belief. Here's what Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the precursor to the 1st amendment: "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."The law we are discussing does not affect anyone differently on account of his religious opinions -- but you would like it to. Huh?

By your reasoning you could do literally anything. So what if the people of this country through their representatives decided in the name of population control to kill all children born to families who already have a child. As long as it is applied equally you have no problem with this law on any other grounds. My problem is forcing people to conform to immoral laws. I has nothing to do with being equally applied, although Prsident obama did promise special conscious exemptions to religious organizations, so apparently he didn't have a problem with exeptions. He has given many other exemptions to his political allies, so that argument doesn't work either.

[vbnautilus 48]

By your reasoning you could do literally anything. So what if the people of this country through their representatives decided in the name of population control to kill all children born to families who already have a child. As long as it is applied equally you have no problem with this law on any other grounds.

If I had a problem with that law on any other grounds it wouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Congress can pass literally any law that isn't prohibited by the constitution.

My problem is forcing people to conform to immoral laws.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. We live in a democracy. What is legal is decided by a representative vote. If you think a law is immoral, try to change it, or disobey and and accept the consequences. That has nothing to do with religious freedom.

I has nothing to do with being equally applied, although Prsident obama did promise special conscious exemptions to religious organizations, so apparently he didn't have a problem with exeptions. He has given many other exemptions to his political allies, so that argument doesn't work either.

President Obama didn't make the law, congress did. The law still has exemptions for religious organizations (although I think it should not) that serve only people from their own religion. The ruling from DHHS is that if a religion-associated organization serves a group of people who are not necessarily religious (e.g. a hospital or college) then it must abide by the law and its insurance must cover contraception (although the religious organization itself won't have to pay for it themselves). It's really not a big deal and certainly does not warrant your "end of religious freedom" melodrama.

[BaseJester 1]

I'm using the virgin sacrifice as an extreme example that your interpretation of the 1st amendment allows. It's extreme on purpose, for clarity's sake. It's supposed to make things easier. For some reason this form of argument is completely unintelligible to certain people.

I think this has now happened twice in this thread.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

According to your argument, since you are allowed to pass a law against virgin sacrifice, you are also allowed to pass any law limiting religious activity. I guess you also believe that since you can have a law against yelling fire in a crowded theatre you can also pass a law limiting all other kinds of free speech.

President Obama didn't make the law, congress did. The law still has exemptions for religious organizations (although I think it should not) that serve only people from their own religion. The ruling from DHHS is that if a religion-associated organization serves a group of people who are not necessarily religious (e.g. a hospital or college) then it must abide by the law and its insurance must cover contraception (although the religious organization itself won't have to pay for it themselves). It's really not a big deal and certainly does not warrant your "end of religious freedom" melodrama.

Passing this law the way it was passed without knowing what was in it, when it was unpopular with a majority of the people certainly does warrant concern and for a lot more than just religious freedom.Edit, don't know what exactly happened, but only half my post posted. Meh, the other half wasn't that great anyway.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Are you going to repost the good half then?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Are you going to repost the good half then?

No, but trust me, it was brilliant.