Religious exception to laws

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _Res Ipsa »

I have no good answer. I'm not sure there are principled distinctions to be made.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _sock puppet »

Brad Hudson wrote:I have no good answer. I'm not sure there are principled distinctions to be made.

The First Amendment would read more accurately as "Congress may only make laws prohibiting aspects of the exercise of religion that the Supreme Courts think would be repugnant if permitted; ... ."
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _Res Ipsa »

sock puppet wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:I have no good answer. I'm not sure there are principled distinctions to be made.

The First Amendment would read more accurately as "Congress may only make laws prohibiting aspects of the exercise of religion that the Supreme Courts think would be repugnant if permitted; ... ."


It's a little different than that, isn't it? Something like: Congress can make laws that infringe on religious practice as long as they are generally applicable laws that aren't targeted at the religious practice. I mean, churches are subject to zoning laws, health regulations, etc. It doesn't have to be a repugnant practice, does it?

The harder part to figure out for me is deciding when to grant accommodations when the power to regulate exists.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _lulu »

Brad Hudson wrote:I have no good answer. I'm not sure there are principled distinctions to be made.


I don't have a good answer either.

I just hope that doesn't mean that Droopy gets to decide
:wink:
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _Res Ipsa »

lulu wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:I have no good answer. I'm not sure there are principled distinctions to be made.


I don't have a good answer either.

I just hope that doesn't mean that Droopy gets to decide
:wink:


Actually, I don't think anyone who thinks they have a good answer should be allowed to decide. :wink:
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _harmony »

I thought the 1st amendment was more about the government not being able to establish a state religion, and less about the individual religious practitioner?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _Res Ipsa »

harmony wrote:I thought the 1st amendment was more about the government not being able to establish a state religion, and less about the individual religious practitioner?


There are two parts: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _harmony »

Brad Hudson wrote:
harmony wrote:I thought the 1st amendment was more about the government not being able to establish a state religion, and less about the individual religious practitioner?


There are two parts: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."


So we're good with the first half and not so good with the second? That's pretty typical for the government.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _lulu »

lulu wrote:I don't have a good answer either.

I just hope that doesn't mean that Droopy gets to decide
:wink:


Brad Hudson wrote:Actually, I don't think anyone who thinks they have a good answer should be allowed to decide. :wink:


ROFL
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Religious exception to laws

Post by _Res Ipsa »

harmony wrote:So we're good with the first half and not so good with the second? That's pretty typical for the government.


Not sure what you mean. I think we do pretty well on both issues.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Post Reply