Religious exception to laws

[_sock puppet]

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... ."

Mormons had their 'religious practice' of bigamy denied them by the federal government in the late 19th Century. The Manifesto resulted.

Despite Warren Jeff's pleading to some of the charges pressed against him as acts taken in pursuit of his religious belief, the federal government has not taken a hands off approach.

Obviously, the federal government does decide where a religious practice leaves off and a violation of civil law begins. It has been the subject of more than one case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its history.

Golden eagles have been a protected species in the U.S. since 1962. Hopi indians are given permits by the federal government to capture, raise and then sacrifice so many Golden eaglets a year, for religious reasons.

The Navajo disagree with the Hopi religious practice. So this year, the federal government permit for Golden eaglets to the Hopis comes with a restriction that they may only take so many of the permitted number from the Navajo Nation.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authorized the Hopi Tribe to collect 40 nesting golden eagles this year for religious use, but the number that can be taken from the neighboring Navajo Nation will be limited for the first time under the federal permit.

Hopi religious practitioners have been gathering the eagles for centuries each spring and raising them in villages that rise above the surrounding desert. Once they've matured, the eagles are offered as a sacrifice and the birds' feathers are given to certain tribal members to be used in other ceremonies and rituals.

The golden eagle also plays a role in the religion of the Navajo, who use the birds' feathers to protect themselves from harm and as sacred adornments. But the Navajo don't agree with the Hopi practice of killing eagles.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has taken note of the conflicting beliefs and for the first time conducted an environmental assessment before approving the Hopi's permit for this year. The assessment that also studied data on eagle populations found that the population overall is sustainable and that the impacts to Navajo culture and religion would not be significant.

The 14th Amendment provides that the government shall not deprive any citizen of the equal protection of the laws. So if they permit the Hopi religious ritual be allowed to kill Golden eagles, why can I not kill a Golden eagle and get off scot-free by claiming I did it as part of my religious beliefs?

Is a religious practice only protected by the 1st Amendment if it (a) has a tradition that government did not nip the practice in the bud before it became a 'tradition', and (b) is shared by more than one or a few?

[_DrW]

This issue has gotten attention in this and other countries because of the claims of (mainly) indigenous peoples to their rights to use traditional entheogens as a part of their religious practice. Certain of these natural substances are powerful hallucinogens and may even be considered as illicit drugs according to national law, except when used by certain people in the practice of their religion.

In the US, for example, legal use of Peyote use by members of the Native American Church is a prime example. See One Nation Under God: The Triumph of the Native American Church.

The Council on Spiritual Practices (CSP) has among its membership some very good scientists and authors and supports the publication of monographs and books related to the subject of mysticism in organized religion and how entheogens relate to religion.

The Council on Spiritual Practices is a collaboration among spiritual guides, experts in the behavioral and biomedical sciences, and scholars of religion, dedicated to making direct experience of the sacred more available to more people. There is evidence that such encounters can have profound benefits for those who experience them, for their neighbors, and for the world.

CSP has a twofold mission: to identify and develop approaches to primary religious experience that can be used safely and effectively, and to help individuals and spiritual communities bring the insights, grace, and joy that arise from direct perception of the divine into their daily lives.

The Council on Spiritual Practices has no doctrine or liturgy of its own.

Their Psychedelic Science Conference is coming up next week (April 18-23) in Oakland, CA, and the speakers list a subject matter for the presentations looks very interesting, indeed.

Anyone who is the least bit interested should check out their website. When it comes to religious conferences, who would want to attend the FAIR Conference when they could attend the Psychedelic Science International Conference 2013, a conference dealing with the mystical core of organized religion?

Don't know if there will be a related exhibition and/or trade show, but one can just imagine.

[_bcspace]

In the US, for example, legal use of Peyote use by members of the Native American Church is a prime example.

The law therefore has set up a class of people being discriminated against in this case (so also goes the argument against Prop 8).

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

The law therefore has set up a class of people being discriminated against in this case (so also goes the argument against Prop 8).

bc,

Please explain your post. What do you mean when you say,"the law therefore has set up a class of people being descriminated against".

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

The law therefore has set up a class of people being discriminated against in this case (so also goes the argument against Prop 8).

bc,

Please explain your post. What do you mean when you say,"the law therefore has set up a class of people being descriminated against".

BC has obviously never attended a college level class on the US Constitution, or he did and failed to understand what was taught.

I'm sure he has a pocket version of the text that he keeps with him and that should impress you.

[_Maksutov]

If bcspace is saying that the group being discriminated against are those who are *not* members of the Native American Church, I believe he has a point. I can't defend the federal government's actions in this case. One group should not be allowed to violate the law based on their ethnic or religious identity. It should be legal for all.

[_sock puppet]

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?

[_bcspace]

BC has obviously never attended a college level class on the US Constitution, or he did and failed to understand what was taught.

Now I'm almost 100% certain none of you know the difference between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause or have read any case law regarding them.

[_Darth J]

Now I'm almost 100% certain none of you know the difference between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause or have read any case law regarding them.

Here's that question I've been asking you and Droopy to answer for three years, bcspace. You ignore it every time, but maybe today you will favor everyone with your dazzling analysis of constitutional law! Fire away, bcspace!

Under Utah law, a clergyman who receives a report of a child being sexually abused, from someone other than a confessing perpetrator, is required to report the allegations of sexual abuse to law enforcement and/or the Utah Division of Child and Family Services.

62A-4a-403. Reporting requirements.
(1) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2), when any person including persons licensed under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately notify the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division.
(b) Upon receipt of the notification described in Subsection (1)(a), the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division. If an initial report of abuse or neglect is made to the division, the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency. The division shall, in addition to its own investigation, comply with and lend support to investigations by law enforcement undertaken pursuant to a report made under this section.
(2) Subject to Subsection (3), the notification requirements of Subsection (1) do not apply to a clergyman or priest, without the consent of the person making the confession, with regard to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in the professional character of the clergyman or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs, if:
(a) the confession was made directly to the clergyman or priest by the perpetrator; and
(b) the clergyman or priest is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.
(3) (a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the clergyman or priest is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though the clergyman or priest may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.
(b) Exemption of notification requirements for a clergyman or priest does not exempt a clergyman or priest from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.

This means that the State is imposing a legal duty on a clergyman to comply with civil law based on information the clergyman obtained within the scope of his role as a religious leader. A clergyman who willfully fails to report this information to law enforcement and/or DCFS is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, which has a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does the State requiring a clergyman to report information he obtained within the scope of being a religious leader violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?

And, more importantly, why or why not, based on the Constitution?

Don't shy away from providing an Establishment Clause analysis, too! Thanks in advance for your compelling answer, bcspace!

[_SteelHead]

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.