View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Religious Freedom

Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
11 Comments
by
PeterL
, 03-27-2015 at 04:20 PM (1863 Views)
Amendment I
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.

Recently I have been surprised to learn that some people are opposed to freedom of religion, and that’s here in the United States of America. There are some countries where there is no freedom of religion, but that right is rather fundamental here. Recently a law was signed in Indiana that further established that people are not required to act contrary to their religious principles, which wasn’t really necessary, because the First Amendment right as applied to the states by the Fourteenth had that effect.

Apparently some people, organizations, and businesses find it offensive that people will not be required to act in ways that are contrary to their religious beliefs. Some seem to think that will result in discrimination against people. The Washington Post story notes that some people think that this law is a license to discriminate against homosexuals, and the President of the NCAA suggests that the NCAA is concerned over how it might affect athletes and employees.

Federal legislation restoring religious freedom was passed in 1993 and signed by Bill Clinton. Read his comments about that law http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/26/...gious-freedom/ . That law was passed to restore the right of Americans to practice their religions, because there had been court decisions infringing those rights. And there are laws that bring into question the rights of citizens to live by their religious principles. The federal law and some state laws re=establish the rights of people to operate as they should according to their religions.

This issue came to mind, because an acquaintance found it offensive that I suggested that people shouldn’t be all that interested in being married by clergy of religions other than their own. That was in reference to a law proposed in Utah that had already passed in Oklahoma that took government out of the business of regulating personal relationships. That was a great advance for liberty, and it didn’t harm anyone, except maybe curators of records. Instead of licensed marriages, people could enter into common law marriages, which in Oklahoma are already equal to licensed marriages. Those people who wanted to have a formal wedding could do so in the church of their choice, and those who wanted to simply live their lives together could do so. http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...arriage-67-24/


People who were not members of any religion might have to look around to find a church that would be willing to marry them, because most religions have some sort of restrictions on who they will marry, but there are other religions that will marry anyone.

Apparently some people want to require places of worship to solemnize the marriages of anyone who walks through the door, even though that would infringe on the freedom of those churches to engage in the religious practices that they wish to practice.

I have a lot of trouble with the fact that married people are given privileges by the government, and others, that are not granted to those who are not married. Here in the U.S.A. that appears to be a violation of equal protection before the law. That law in Oklahoma eliminated some of that discrimination against unmarried persons. Apparently there is disagreement about this, because some people think that government should be involved in what goes on in their bedrooms. Well, it takes all kinds, but we don’t need to have government regulate marriage.

This may be the beginning of the end for religions discrimination in the U.S.A., but there are many more advances that will be necessary before there will be true freedom of religion, and taxing churches is one of the things that is necessary. But maybe I should just incorporate my religion and start taking advantage of those preferences that religions get; the tax breaks alone would make it worthwhile.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...sday/70448858/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...liberties-law/
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Clopin's Avatar
    Yeh I don't know how this can even be an issue when the answer is so obvious. Obviously what you write here is correct.
  2. PeterL's Avatar
    That's how I feel, too. There isn't an issue, as far as I'm concerned, but totalitarianists don't like people to have beliefs that differ from their own. It doesn't hurt me one bit if someone disagrees with my religious beliefs.
  3. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    The right to religious freedom does not and cannot allow one to infringe upon or trample someone else's constitutional rights. It also does not allow them to break the law. The Constitution and constitutional laws prohibits any governmentally-licensed businesses from refusing service to customers for who they are...end of story.

    As to gay marriages, the Constitution--particularly the 4th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause--and the Loving v. Virginia ruling legitimates Gays' constitutional rights to get married in civic marriages. They do not have to accept the "separate-but-unequal" common-law marriages or "civil unions." And nobody is requiring any churches to marry anybody whom they don't wan to marry. So, your saying someone is is untrue and alarmist.
  4. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
    The right to religious freedom does not and cannot allow one to infringe upon or trample someone else's constitutional rights. It also does not allow them to break the law. The Constitution and constitutional laws prohibits any governmentally-licensed businesses from refusing service to customers for who they are...end of story.
    And vice versa.

    As to gay marriages, the Constitution--particularly the 4th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause--and the Loving v. Virginia ruling legitimates Gays' constitutional rights to get married in civic marriages. They do not have to accept the "separate-but-unequal" common-law marriages or "civil unions." And nobody is requiring any churches to marry anybody whom they don't wan to marry. So, your saying someone is is untrue and alarmist.
    Whereas the Constitution does not grant the federal government any power over marriage, and whereas the full faith and credit clause requires that a legal marriage in one state is a lawful marriage in all states; there is no reason for the federal courts to become involved unless one state refuses to respect the lawful marriage from another state.
  5. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    Actually, no; it is not "vice versa." Customers have a constitutional right to not be denied service for who they are. Businesses do not have a constitutional right to deny service to people for who they are, even because of that businesses religious beliefs.

    And the Constitution does not have to grant the federal government power over marriage. The Constitution--in particular, the Equal Protection Clause--and the Loving v. Virginia ruling already assert and protect Gays' rights to marriage. And since no state law can override the constitution, no state law can deny Gays their marriage rights. That's why all 22 rulings have gone against states' attempts to bar gay marriage and affirmed Gays' marriage rights.

    So, you might as well get used to it, Peter: Gay marriage will soon be the law of the land in every state. It's sad that would actually bother you.
  6. PeterL's Avatar
    There is a vice versa. People in this country have a Constitutional right to engage in their religions.

    You may marry whatever you like. I don't care. But the Constitution in no way grants the federal government any power to determine who may or may not marry. It is my opinion that goevernment should not touch marriage in any way, but governments like to regulate things. So you can expect more governmental intrusion into your personal life.
  7. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    Peter actually edited my original post, which is below.
    Updated 04-24-2015 at 02:48 PM by Pike Bishop
  8. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
    Finally, since none of your arguments counter Gay marriage or the government involvement supporting it, it seems very apparent you don't want Gays to get married. So, are you ok with them getting married or are you against it?
    I don't know where you got that idea. I don't care who marries whom. If you want to marry a dolphin, then do so. But I do oppose married persons being accorded privileges that are not shared by all persons.
  9. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    Peter, it is not appropriate or ethical for you to edit my polite responses to your posts.
    Updated 04-24-2015 at 06:08 PM by PeterL
  10. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    And I logically got the idea you were against gay marriage because you want to restrict marriages to religious marriages, which would bar most Gay marriages. Secondly, you complain about married people getting additional rights now, when they have gotten them for over a hundred years. So, the timing does seem "convenient."

    However, at least we agree Gays do have a right to marriage in this country, and that's a start.
    Updated 04-24-2015 at 06:59 PM by Pike Bishop
  11. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
    And I illogically got the idea you were against gay marriage because you want to restrict marriages to religious marriages, which would bar most Gay marriages. Secondly, you complain about married people getting additional rights now, when they have gotten them for over a hundred years. So, the timing does seem "convenient."
    Apparently you believe what you feel like believing, regardless of anything else.

    However, at least we agree Gays do have a right to marriage in this country, and that's a start.
    It depends on what you mean by "right". People can say they are married; that is common law, and common law marriage is recognised in many states. HAving government regulate such relationships is a problem.