[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.7323

File: 1602774980083.png (40.62 KB, 360x168, 15:7, 6bc26e6.png) ImgOps Google

Was thinking about the sex education thread, and in the back of my mind there's the amy coney barrett hearing. Plus any time lgbt people gain rights and equality. There's this thing that is often used in opposition to progress or used to justify regressive policy.

Freedom of Religion

But what should be permissible under freedom of religion that would not be permissible otherwise?

Should a private company be able to deny legally mandated Healthcare benefits to its employees?

Should a private company be allowed to discriminate against a protected class?

Should parents be allowed to exclude their child from parts of education?

Should a government employee be allowed to not perform critical functions of their job?

Should a tax exempt church be able promote and push on its members a political ideology? Or use the church's money to donate to political causes?

Basically, what role do you think freedom of religion should reasonably take in this country?

And what do you think about the ability to just found a new religion such as scientology? Can I just make a new religion and define it however I want and use that to gain extra rights?

 No.7324

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Nowhere does it say that you get to take away the rights of others. Unfortunately this is the middle ages and we are a common law country so the 200 years of hypocrisy are the law of the land instead.

 No.7325

>>7323
>But what should be permissible under freedom of religion that would not be permissible otherwise?
Historically, there were wars and other forms of violence and bloodshed due to religious intolerance.  To try to prevent this and instead allow peaceful co-existence, the founders of our country decided to extend special protections for differences in religious beliefs and practices.

>Can I just make a new religion and define it however I want and use that to gain extra rights?
Courts inquire into whether religious beliefs are "sincerely held".  A newly made-up religion that aligns closely with secular interests usually doesn't pass the sniff test.

 No.7326

>>7324
So basically, you are saying the system is not really working as originally intended? What should be the actual line in terms of separation of church and state? Like what should it actually look like?

>>7325
>Historically, there were wars and other forms of violence and bloodshed due to religious intolerance.  To try to prevent this and instead allow peaceful co-existence, the founders of our country decided to extend special protections for differences in religious beliefs and practices.
I mean, that is a nice history lesson but doesn't really answer any of my questions. The founders did what they had to do back then. What should we do today? We don't live in the 1700s anymore.

>Courts inquire into whether religious beliefs are "sincerely held".  A newly made-up religion that aligns closely with secular interests usually doesn't pass the sniff test.
Okay, so let's exclude IPU and flying spaghetti monster. What about paganism, wicca, and even something like buddism? Like, buddhists do not believe in an actual God. They just believe in concepts really. They believe them really really strongly! So, should I be allowed to found a religion based on my strongly held beliefs? If not, what is the difference between Buddhism and that? What is the litmus test for 'sincerely held religious belief'?

Like, it seems to me that the religions we have only get credibility for being old and established. Isn't that problematic?

 No.7327

>>7326
>but doesn't really answer any of my questions.
Oops, I misread your question (my answer was really an answer to "Why should it be permissible under freedom of religion when it would not be permissible otherwise?".)

>>7326
>What should we do today? We don't live in the 1700s anymore.
I think the original concerns still have some validity today.  E.g., The Troubles were partially religiously motivated and weren't resolved until 1998.

>>7326
>What is the litmus test for 'sincerely held religious belief'?
I think any sort of core moral beliefs count.  E.g., atheist conscientious objectors are treated the same way as religious conscientious objectors.

 No.7332

>>7323
I would say generally that the core principle should be the 'Non-Aggression Theory' or however it's put. People have rights. They cannot, however, exercise those rights to a degree that directly harms others and deprives others of their own rights. That should be the central framework. I also think that we should keep in mind the observation, held true without history, that the best government is usually the most limited and small government: like the force of fire, government power is useful as all heck but must be strictly contained.

To pick one particular point and chew on it:
>"Should a government employee be allowed to not perform critical functions of their job?"

I'd say that this question hinges entirely on whether or not the employee is willing to step aside and let somebody else do the essential work. If somebody is being like Kim Davis and using their position to forbid anyone whatsoever from doing an important function, doing the equivalent of spreading one's body in front of a schoolhouse door lest it be racially integrated, then that can't be allowed. In those circumstances, real harm is happening. Other folks could do that work.

To put even more fine a point on it, suppose a police officer who's a Christian fundamentalist refuses to investigate a case of a transgender woman being raped and murdered because he just can't stand those individuals. That's disgusting. He ought to be fired immediately.

But what if we don't know what this hypothetical Officer Smith is thinking, and all that's happening is that we're in a police station where assignments are getting handed out semi-randomly. Smith gets a certain Jane Doe situation and says "Maybe Officer Roberts should handle this instead since he's in tight with the local LGBT community more than I am, with more experience." Even if Officer Smith's own religion happened to play a role in what he just said, even subconsciously, I'd say that no harm, no foul. Smith is being reasonable.

 No.7335

>>7323
I can not stress enough that Gods will be subordinate to states, so freedom of religion is only in those things where there is no state enforcement.  So the Bill of Rights just says America should not be expected to erect a state religion.

>Can I just make a new religion and define it however I want and use that to gain extra rights?

You may make a new religion and worship your God(s)* with as many freedoms as established religions such as Christianity.

 No.7339

>>7332
That's a good take on it, probably the ideal kind is compromise.

>>7335
Can my church be tax exempt too? Or should we take tax exemption status from religious organizations?

 No.7342

Freedom of religion should be bound by what others rights other people have.

Otherwise, if religious excemptions are allowed based on declaration of belief, then none of the other rights would mean anything if one could declare a belief from exempting one from having to respect the rights of others.

If I own and operate a vital service, I should not be allowed to deny access to that service on a declaration of faith alone, cause if anyone could do that, then what weight could any declaration of rights hold if anyone could declare their reasons to deny it based on religious exemption.

Likewise no one should be able to actively try to suppress anyone's other rights based on religious excemption either, especially if one could simply declare it a deeply held religious belief that they must suppress others rights.

So you might argue that no one should be able to arbitrarily declare just anything is a religious belief. But the again, who should have authority to declare one's religious beliefs to be officially recognized?

 No.7350

To me freedom of religion implies that you can follow and practice any religion freely, but you shoud still abide by the laws society put in place. Religion does not make you exempt from the law.
On the flipside, separation of Church and State should imply that laws shouldn't be made to single out and attack a religion.

> Should a private company be able to deny legally mandated Healthcare benefits to its employees?
No. If it's set in the laws that certain rights are given to your employees, religion doesn't make you exempt from this. If someone calls inspection, they have every right to penalize you.

> Should a private company be allowed to discriminate against a protected class?
I suppose it depends what the laws say. I think it should be morally rerehensible, but not really a legal matter what people you deny service to.

> Should parents be allowed to exclude their child from parts of education?
Around here, kids are by law forced to take schooling until they're 18. And even in private schooling and homeschooling, there's an education plan that sets requirements on what knowledge needs to be acquired.
So it is against the law to deny your kids set education standards.

> Should a government employee be allowed to not perform critical functions of their job?
Religion should not be a reason to not perform your duties as an employee. But this is up to the employer, I suppose.
Private employers can exempt employees from their official tasks for religious reasons.
Public, government-funded sector, I think shouldn't. But I suppose that would be the case.
Again, while I disagree with it, I suppose it's up to the people running the sector wat they do with their employees.

> Should a tax exempt church be able promote and push on its members a political ideology? Or use the church's money to donate to political causes?
That's tricky. I guess it's up to the people working there.
If calls to violence are pushed, I suppose the law enforcement can shut them down.
If the manager wants to run in the election with a campaign pressing religious vallues and they use their company as a place to promote themselves, then whatever.

> And what do you think about the ability to just found a new religion such as scientology? Can I just make a new religion and define it however I want and use that to gain extra rights?
I would hope there's a system in place that vets things properly would be in place.
I mean, people can declare their own religion at any point, but when you get recognised as a religion, I suppose there's a lot of official benefits that you can pull from it. I hope the State would not be wasteful with their resources on this.
Other than that, considering cults, if people start lawsuits over abuse suffered in that cult, I think the cult should be held up to scrutiny all the same.

> Now insert European headscarves debate

 No.7351

>>7339
>Can my church be tax exempt too?

I believe so, if you do the right paperwork.

>Or should we take tax exemption status from religious organizations?

As they seem to be grouped with other non-profits, I don't have a strong opinion, I don't think.

 No.7461

The boundary, in my experience, is best outlined by saying this: You can't force someone to do something they believe to be morally wrong, with a few exceptions like repayment of debts, punishment for crimes, fair compensation in a trade, and the fulfilling of contractual obligations.

Using that basic outline, here are my answers:

>Should a private company be able to deny legally mandated Healthcare benefits to its employees?
No. That falls under fair compensation in a trade.

>Should a private company be allowed to discriminate against a protected class?
Yes. No classes should be protected, and businesses should have the right to choose who they do business with. If they wish to miss out on profits because of bigotry, that's entirely on them.

>Should parents be allowed to exclude their child from parts of education?
Depends. Parents should have almost total control over what their child learn in education, however, preventing their children from getting an education altogether could and probably should be considered child abuse to some degree.

>Should a government employee be allowed to not perform critical functions of their job?
Yes, absolutely. Every individual should be allowed to make their own moral judgements about what parts of their job they will do. If the employer wants to fire or replace an individual that will not do that part of their job, then that is also valid.

>Should a tax exempt church be able promote and push on its members a political ideology?
Yes. The line between political and moral ideologies gets blurrier by the day, and churches are all about moral belief systems. So yes. They can't force members to stay though.

>Or use the church's money to donate to political causes?
Ehhh... That money should probably be taxed if it's going toward a specific politician or political movement, but they should be allowed to make such donations.

>Basically, what role do you think freedom of religion should reasonably take in this country?
The same freedoms that everyone gets in the country. The right to make their own decisions about what they believe is morally okay to do, and the right not to be forced to do something they believe to be morally wrong.

>Can I just make a new religion and define it however I want and use that to gain extra rights?
You don't gain extra rights by making a new religion, besides like... a tax exemption for the income of your church. All of your rights stay the same. If you believe something is morally wrong, no matter your religion or lack thereof, you should have the freedom to not be forced to do it.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]