Religious exception to laws

[_sock puppet]

The case of native American religion is quite a different animal as the reservations are for most intents sovereign nations subject to their own laws and granted a lot of independent rule as conditions of the various treaties.

Agreed, but not as to protected species. That's why the Hopi have to get a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service permit, and live by the limiting conditions--like the new limit on how many can be taken in Navajo Nation.

[_Some Schmo]

I am seeking comments about what this, Mormon Discussions board thinks is the appropriate outer perimeter of free exercise of religion? What acts should be considered part of the free exercise of religion, and what should Congress be able to regulate despite a claim of free exercise of religion?

To answer this specific question, I think people should be allowed to practice their religion in any way they want so long as they don't hurt anyone (everyone) who can suffer. It's hard to say how much the sacrificed birds suffer (I don't know how quickly they're killed) but the fact that they are killed at all is a bit much.

So yes, they should bury guys like Jeffs. Cut off his balls and stuff them down his throat. But I have no problem with people who keep their religious practice to themselves and seek to be decent.

So yeah, it's all about the whether the religious practice harms those that can suffer or not. That's the line, AFAIC.

[_sock puppet]

I am seeking comments about what this, Mormon Discussions board thinks is the appropriate outer perimeter of free exercise of religion? What acts should be considered part of the free exercise of religion, and what should Congress be able to regulate despite a claim of free exercise of religion?

To answer this specific question, I think people should be allowed to practice their religion in any way they want so long as they don't hurt anyone (everyone) who can suffer. It's hard to say how much the sacrificed birds suffer (I don't know how quickly they're killed) but the fact that they are killed at all is a bit much.

So yes, they should bury guys like Jeffs. Cut off his balls and stuff them down his throat. But I have no problem with people who keep their religious practice to themselves and seek to be decent.

So yeah, it's all about the whether the religious practice harms those that can suffer or not. That's the line, AFAIC.

Thanks. I think a good parameter to limit the free exercise of religion is not to harm others. That then opens the question of what is harm to others for this purpose.

I like your overarching libertarian approach.

[_Flaming Meaux]

Consider Warren Jeffs and his sect of Mormons. Should his sex with young, early pubescent girls be protected from government as the free exercise of religion? I don't think so. Should Hopi indians be able to sacrifice Golden Eagles, which the Navajo (and American society in general) want to protect?

As a constitutional matter, I am in agreement with you that the answer should be no and no.

On the issue of sex with young, early pubescent girls, I think it can be agreed that there is a religiously neutral law of general applicability prohibiting such behavior, such that it isn't relevant, as a constitutional matter, that a particular religious nutjob with a particular penchant for pubescent pre-teens happens to feel that his religion permits him (or requires him) to engage in those types of behaviors. Free exercise of religion doesn't mean you are free of absolutely any government action that may impact your ability to exercise your particular religion, it only means that you should have some degree of freedom from the government specifically targeting your practice of your religion without a compelling reason for doing so. This is the same reason why, as a constitutional matter, it is perfectly acceptable (and constitutional) to criminalize use/possession of peyote notwithstanding the fact that it means a few native americans using it in their religious ceremonies would be committing a criminal act (particularly where the law was also not passed with the express design to target native american religious ceremonies).

Of course, you are correct that Congress has, in certain cases, passed specific laws to accommodate certain religious practices (hence the reason why certain native americans can legally use peyote in their ceremonies notwithstanding that it would perfectly constitutional to keep that behavior criminal). Personally, I don't think Congress should be in the business of making these special accommodations, though many of these laws are admittedly likely not violative of the first amendment in the other direction (e.g., an impermissible establishment or particular preference for a certain religion). Unfortunately, making special (and unwarranted) accomodations for religion is part of the fabric of conservative America it seems (or at least what conservative America has become over the past 20 years particularly).

It's always a rip to listen to Oaks (a lawyer who should, and likely does, know a thing or two about the Constitution) get on his "freedom of religion" bit, particularly when what he is asking for, if you actually understand what the Constitution says and means, isn't just an appropriately Constitutionally-limited degree of government interference or non-interference, but rather governmentally-sanctioned special accommodations for his particular religious beliefs. The great thing for Oaks is that a lot of non-lawyers will eat his s#!t up like he's speaking some sort of gospel because they don't have the mental acuity to recognize the mirrors and cheap parlor tricks.

[_Some Schmo]

Thanks. I think a good parameter to limit the free exercise of religion is not to harm others. That then opens the question of what is harm to others for this purpose.

Yep. What constitutes harm? How extreme does it have to be before we regulate? etc etc.

The issue becomes really fuzzy for me with respect to animals. How much do they suffer? Clearly, some species are more capable of suffering than others. I personally have no problem squishing a bug in my house, but even then, I try to do it quickly because I don't want them to suffer, not knowing how much they can feel pain (some days, if I'm feeling particularly soft-hearted, I will scoop them up and escort them outside). Mammals and birds, however, seem very capable of hurting, so my own sense of morality dictates that I treat them with the same care as humans. Maybe even more so, since many are dependent on humans.

These days, I'm struggling with whether it's moral to eat meat, honestly. I tend to go for farm raised, mostly because I suspect they have a better chance of being killed humanely (something about corporate assembly line kill floors strikes me as inhumane - crazy, I know). But should I really support "meat production" at all? If I didn't love damn chicken wings and rib-eye steak so much, it wouldn't be an issue.

I like your overarching libertarian approach.

I have my leanings...

[_lulu]

You mean like this?

Call the doctor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... ostpopular

[_Res Ipsa]

Every law has an impact on behavior. Congress is specifically authorized in Article I to make laws. There are limits in Article I that have gone largely ignored, like the contract and the commerce clauses, with the judiciary being for the most part unwilling to use those provisions to limit and strike down what Congress has enacted in those regards. Wickard v Filburn, 1941, perhaps being one of the most stark abdications of the judiciary's role.

The 1st Amendment limits that, providing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... ." The judiciary has been willing to strike down certain laws enacted by Congress, and the methods used by the executive branch to enforce others, as violative of the 1st Amendment protections against Congress making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I am seeking comments about what this, Mormon Discussions board thinks is the appropriate outer perimeter of free exercise of religion? What acts should be considered part of the free exercise of religion, and what should Congress be able to regulate despite a claim of free exercise of religion?

Consider Warren Jeffs and his sect of Mormons. Should his sex with young, early pubescent girls be protected from government as the free exercise of religion? I don't think so. Should Hopi indians be able to sacrifice Golden Eagles, which the Navajo (and American society in general) want to protect?

Have the courts ruled on whether the federal government could prohibit the Hopis from taking golden eagles, or is this a voluntary accommodation of a religious practice? From a constitutional perspective, as long as the prohibition against killing eagles was uniformly applied, I don't think the Free Exercise clause would bar a complete ban on killing eagles for the purpose of protecting the species. On the other hand, I don't think accommodating the religious practice would violate the Establishment Clause. I think there is a difference between promoting a religion and granting an exception to generally applicable laws to accommodate religions practice. As to where to draw the line, who know?

[_lulu]

Every law has an impact on behavior. Congress is specifically authorized in Article I to make laws. There are limits in Article I that have gone largely ignored, like the contract and the commerce clauses, with the judiciary being for the most part unwilling to use those provisions to limit and strike down what Congress has enacted in those regards. Wickard v Filburn, 1941, perhaps being one of the most stark abdications of the judiciary's role.

The 1st Amendment limits that, providing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... ." The judiciary has been willing to strike down certain laws enacted by Congress, and the methods used by the executive branch to enforce others, as violative of the 1st Amendment protections against Congress making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I am seeking comments about what this, Mormon Discussions board thinks is the appropriate outer perimeter of free exercise of religion? What acts should be considered part of the free exercise of religion, and what should Congress be able to regulate despite a claim of free exercise of religion?

Consider Warren Jeffs and his sect of Mormons. Should his sex with young, early pubescent girls be protected from government as the free exercise of religion? I don't think so. Should Hopi indians be able to sacrifice Golden Eagles, which the Navajo (and American society in general) want to protect?

Have the courts ruled on whether the federal government could prohibit the Hopis from taking golden eagles, or is this a voluntary accommodation of a religious practice? From a constitutional perspective, as long as the prohibition against killing eagles was uniformly applied, I don't think the Free Exercise clause would bar a complete ban on killing eagles for the purpose of protecting the species. On the other hand, I don't think accommodating the religious practice would violate the Establishment Clause. I think there is a difference between promoting a religion and granting an exception to generally applicable laws to accommodate religions practice. As to where to draw the line, who know?

You're ducking the question .

Should the government be able to require you take your children to the doctor so they don't die.

[_Res Ipsa]

You're ducking the question .

Should the government be able to require you take your children to the doctor so they don't die.

Sorry, didn't mean to duck. The government should be able to enact laws making it a crime to neglect children, including withholding medical care. It should also be able to remove children from their parents/guardians in order to get the children medical care and to remove children other than the neglected child for their safety. What constitutes "neglect" is a line drawing exercise that has to be discussed/debated, etc.

[_lulu]

You're ducking the question .

Should the government be able to require you take your children to the doctor so they don't die.

Sorry, didn't mean to duck. The government should be able to enact laws making it a crime to neglect children, including withholding medical care. It should also be able to remove children from their parents/guardians in order to get the children medical care and to remove children other than the neglected child for their safety. What constitutes "neglect" is a line drawing exercise that has to be discussed/debated, etc.

Just pulling you chain on the "ducking the issue" thing.

But serious.

How does any society go about deciding such things? Congress and the courts might be the mechanisms but . . .


No religious exemptions for:

Killing your children

Polygamy

but

religious exemptions for

peyote

eagle feathers

not marrying Gay people