General Discussion

frazzled

(18,402 posts)

7. "Free exercise of religion" claims often come into conflict with ...

Wed Feb 26, 2014, 05:56 PM

Feb 2014

the enforcement of laws and Constitutional issues, and with the interests of the state. I should hope that the Court would find the Arizona-type law wholly unconstitutional. The real test will come before, with the Hobby Lobby case, arguing that businesses shouldn't have to insure women for birth control, etc. if it is against their "beliefs."

I guess my point is: it's none of our business what people want to believe. It is COMPLETELY our business whether they are allowed to enact into law those beliefs, and in so doing deprive others of their civil rights.

Here's a pretty good summary of the history of modern Supreme Court cases in which the "free exercise" clause and the enforcement of laws have come into conflict.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Religious beliefs that are prejudiced against women, LGBT, races should be judged as harshly as... [View all] CreekDog Feb 2014 OP

I don't care what someone "believes" jberryhill Feb 2014 #1

i think beliefs actually are harmful. i also think that if you know what someone believes... CreekDog Feb 2014 #3

If the action is merely expressing a belief.... jberryhill Feb 2014 #5

and if he said that about black people? CreekDog Feb 2014 #9

So, what do you want to do with people who believe bad things or say bad things? jberryhill Feb 2014 #12

I think the objective is to establish a precedent. zeemike Feb 2014 #19

the objective is not to do anything of the sort, it's to talk and reason with people CreekDog Feb 2014 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author PassingFair Feb 2014 #67

Thanks....changed it. zeemike Feb 2014 #68

what's the matter with you? i wrote above that my relative simply talked and reasoned with me CreekDog Feb 2014 #26

Yes, I regularly see how you "reason" with people jberryhill Feb 2014 #35

if pointing out what you said is an attack on your character, then it's your words that betray you CreekDog Feb 2014 #37

OMG. Get a mirror dude. pintobean Feb 2014 #40

I know, right? jberryhill Feb 2014 #46

I love that he used the term "physical handicap" pintobean Feb 2014 #52

It's his thing jberryhill Feb 2014 #54

How are the acoustics? pintobean Feb 2014 #56

Pretty good jberryhill Feb 2014 #58

so you call your daughter by her name but other kids with disabilities you call "handicapped" CreekDog Feb 2014 #87

Yes, Creek, I actually punch several of them every day jberryhill Feb 2014 #88

it refers to the condition not the whole person CreekDog Feb 2014 #77

Stop calling people handicapped CreekDog Feb 2014 #69

ah, welcome, as usual, posting opinions about DUers and never about the thread topic CreekDog Feb 2014 #49

fascinating that you're being obtuse on this and... CreekDog Feb 2014 #28

Predictable jberryhill Feb 2014 #32

"handicapped"? there are no "handicapped" people. CreekDog Feb 2014 #42

It's printed on the permit we use for our daughter jberryhill Feb 2014 #44

does that placard tell you to call her handicapped? CreekDog Feb 2014 #48

I call her "Kate" if you must know jberryhill Feb 2014 #51

well you called a person handicapped and then justified it CreekDog Feb 2014 #55

Did the manager fill his coffee as many times as a right-handed person? AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #16

Well now that would be an action, wouldn't it? jberryhill Feb 2014 #33

But one that is neither overt, nor conscious. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #41

Once again... jberryhill Feb 2014 #45

The people in the study didn't apparently realize they were acting. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #47

Okay, so jberryhill Feb 2014 #50

How the hell are you going to proscribe an action that the believer doesn't consciously recognize? AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #53

Because actions can be proscribed jberryhill Feb 2014 #57

being brainwashed into ridiculous beliefs at a young age snooper2 Feb 2014 #59

I agree with that. HappyMe Feb 2014 #4

asshats come in all shapes and sizes and across the board. loli phabay Feb 2014 #6

Exactly. HappyMe Feb 2014 #8

Interesting concept Fred Gilmore Feb 2014 #20

Welcome to DU gopiscrap Feb 2014 #72

Are you saying that mere beliefs cannot influence the masses Rex Feb 2014 #63

Well, as long as we have adequate controls on beliefs getting out of hand jberryhill Feb 2014 #64

Would that be the Tea Party? Rex Feb 2014 #65

Anyone with whose beliefs I disagree jberryhill Feb 2014 #66

...^ 840high Feb 2014 #76

Tell that one to the "witches" hung in Salem Town. raven mad Feb 2014 #79

Gee, I believe executions would count as "actions" jberryhill Feb 2014 #80

The "actions" were by a small minority - raven mad Feb 2014 #84

THANK YOU! get the red out Feb 2014 #2

"Free exercise of religion" claims often come into conflict with ... frazzled Feb 2014 #7

They can believe what they want, but they can't force others to believe the same. freshwest Feb 2014 #13

I agree. stopbush Feb 2014 #10

I think they should be required to be consistent. jeff47 Feb 2014 #11

"required to be consistent." former9thward Feb 2014 #18

The court excepting them from the laws of the country. jeff47 Feb 2014 #21

Well you are not answering the question. former9thward Feb 2014 #24

Read the subject of the reply. jeff47 Feb 2014 #70

See what former9thward is doing? He's saying that if we criticize a belief... CreekDog Feb 2014 #29

I simply asked the question. former9thward Feb 2014 #34

The consistency should be required by which ever agency is expect to help them Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #89

So a government monitor for religion. former9thward Feb 2014 #90

Most people who practice 'faith' of any kind are 'cafeteria' worshippers. MADem Feb 2014 #30

And that's why we shouldn't let "but this book says so" work as an argument (nt) jeff47 Feb 2014 #71

For many, it's a cultural exercise, too...and a familial one. MADem Feb 2014 #74

Agreed. Especially because religious beliefs are *chosen*. People *choose* to believe those things. cui bono Feb 2014 #14

Amen to that! n/t wryter2000 Feb 2014 #15

You mean a gold, pointy hat doesn't excuse boorish bigotry? AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #17

Nor Sexual Abuse Fred Gilmore Feb 2014 #23

DU rec...nt SidDithers Feb 2014 #22

We're making this a lot harder than it needs to be Glitterati Feb 2014 #25

I'm a big believer in religious freedom quinnox Feb 2014 #31

But that requires you to judge which beliefs get a pass and which are unacceptable FiveGoodMen Feb 2014 #36

That is why used the suicide bomber example quinnox Feb 2014 #38

Sounds reasonable FiveGoodMen Feb 2014 #39

I understand what you mean quinnox Feb 2014 #43

K&R n/t NealK Feb 2014 #60

A bigot should be called out on their bigotry, whether he/she is hiding behind religion or not. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #61

That should apply to Francis whose gay baiting leads 42% of Uganda Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #62

These threads always fill with people that can't tell the difference between JoeyT Feb 2014 #73

But they aren't yet... Religion is still quite privileged... MellowDem Feb 2014 #75

I can think of posters who are very strong on women's rights Arugula Latte Feb 2014 #82

Yes, I've seen this often on DU theHandpuppet Feb 2014 #83

"so what if your church told you to believe that way, what kind of excuse is that?" raven mad Feb 2014 #78

that's the kind of thing I like about the Jesuits CreekDog Feb 2014 #81

This one left the priesthood shortly afterward - raven mad Feb 2014 #85

Recommend. nt Zorra Feb 2014 #86