Let's finally hash it out -- what religious liberties are Americans lacking?

[crossfire]

Does this negate the point of the argument? I don't think it affects it.

If the government does not provide laws for marriage contracts, then Secular Humanists, Buddhists, and other religions who see marriage as a secular concern would work to enact secular laws regarding marriage, as there is no religious route for marriage among these groups.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This came up in another thread, by a member who suggested that Trump will "restore religious liberties." But it brings up the question, does it not? What religious liberties do Americans not have, that they are so anxious to have given back to them?

I'm not going to spoil the thread by suggesting answers -- I really and truly just wish to ask the question, of Americans (or any other western democracy, if they'd care to participate). What religious liberties do you want, that you currently do not have?

There are instances where one right knocks up against another right, forcing one or the other to take precedent. For a long time, religious liberty came second to many other rights. Now the tables are turning and the courts are giving precedent to religious liberty over other rights.

Let's take for example the issue of whether taxpayer money should support religious schools. The approach of the 20th century was to remove any reference to religion from the public schools, and to give no financial support to those schools which chose to remain religious.

However, some interesting cases are coming up in the courts that may reinterpret this in a manner more favorable to religious schools. For example, in Maine, there is a voucher system in effect. If I remember rightly, there are communities which have no public education available. The state pays the tuition for the kids to attend local private schools. Religious schools have made the argument that by supplying vouchers ONLY to secular schools, the state is advocating secularism over religion, which is a violation of the establishment clause (because "no-religion" is a just as much a religious choice as a particular religion).

Let me try to explain the idea in other words. The government is not allowed to favor any one religion (including non-religions such as atheism). If state money did NOT support any ONE religion, but instead supported a wide variety of different religions as well as no religion at all, it would not violate the establishment clause. Indeed, it is being argued that by supporting ONLY a secular view, that this is exactly the sort of discrimination that the first amendment forbids.

Let's look at one other issue, and then I'll leave it for others to discuss. There has always been a tension between the values society wants to support and religious beliefs that don't always line up. For example, the Mormons wanted to be polygamous, and were not allowed to follow their religion because the courts argued that polygamy violated values so core to America that the gavel simply came down against the LDS.

However, since that time, the courts have moved further and further away from that way of thinking. Many today believe that that only time the state should interfere with someone's free expression of their religion is when it causes direct harm, such as when a Jehovah's Witness will cause their child to die by denying them a blood transfusion.

And so lately, we have seen quite a few cases where religious institutions and businesses and individuals have been given more leeway to be true to their private consciences, even when this may conflict with public policy, such as the case where the cake baker refused to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.

When people speak of the expansion of religious freedom, this is the sort of thing they are referring to.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Marriage license requirements, ban on polygamy, and use of psychedelic substances in religious rituals are 3 examples that come to mind.

As far as I'm aware, Native American tribes have clashed with the government (state or federal) over the use of peyote, but it seems that it has now reached a point where there's an exemption for them. That's fine, but what if someone says that cocaine, cannabis, magic mushrooms, toad venom, opioids, narcotics, or whatever is part of their religion (regardless of whether it's been a part of their religion for a long time or just started today)? Will the government leave them alone? If not, then I think we'd have a double standard.

There was a recent case where a Lutheran school on a Navajo reservation expelled some of the girls because they had attended a Navajo coming of age ceremony. The school said it was Satan worship.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now that, I agree, is a lack of religious freedom. In Canada, our Supreme Court holds that the right to hold religious beliefs is broader than the right to act on them (by gum I like that!!). So one presumes that an accused may be required to answer questions about religious belief if that belief has led to the action for which the accused is charged.

Canada very definitely denies the right to free exercise of religion as well as freedom of speech. There has been more than one case where a Christian pastor has been prosecuted for saying homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Canada very definitely denies the right to free exercise of religion as well as freedom of speech. There has been more than one case where a Christian pastor has been prosecuted for saying homosexuality is a sin.

I have been unable to find such a case. Would you be so kind as to provide a link?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have been unable to find such a case. Would you be so kind as to provide a link?

In 2002, Pastor Stephen Boissoin published a letter deploring homosexuality which was determined by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to be a hate crime, a criminal violation. The pastor was ordered to "refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages." It wasn't until 2008 that a judge reversed the ruling, calling it unconstitutional.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/court-quashes-human-rights-anti-gay-ruling-1.786184

Pastor David Lynn was arrested in 2019 for preaching in Toronto's "gay village." While the pastor was seeking to frame his sermon as one of love, and kept a calm demeanor, it riled up the crowd, leading to his arrest for disturbing the peace. His arrest highlighted concerns over the limits of free speech, particularly religious speech. The Crown did not withdraw teh charges until a year later.

Criminal charges withdrawn against street preacher David Lynn | ARPA Canada

The Crown withdrew its criminal charges against David Lynn today, almost a year after he was arrested while street preaching in Toronto’s “gay village” at the opening of “Pride Month”. This case was politically charged from the outset. Lynn had been charged with two criminal offences: mischief...

arpacanada.ca

Another well-known case is that of Pastor William Whatcott, who faced legal action after distributing flyers in 2001-2002 that condemned homosexuality based on his interpretation of the Bible. In this particular case, the vocabulary was far more inflammatory, calling gays sodomites and child molesters. Whatcott's case went all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that his materials were hate speech, leading to his conviction.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/hate-speech-case-reaches-supreme-court-1.1036730

Now I will be the first to agree that Whatcott was downright nasty and out of line. But you have to understand that I'm approaching this from the American understanding of free speech. Here in the US, a person can tell me I'm Satan's seed, a kike, a genocidal Khazari hell bent on taking over the world, and it's LEGAL. It's what WE call free speech. Now the moment they lay hands on me, destroy my property, or urge others to, THEN it becomes a hate crime. But there is no law against hate speech here, even though it is nasty business. Compared to the freedom people have here, Canada simply is less free.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In 2002, Pastor Stephen Boissoin published a letter deploring homosexuality which was determined by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to be a hate crime, a criminal violation. The pastor was ordered to "refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages." It wasn't until 2008 that a judge reversed the ruling, calling it unconstitutional.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/court-quashes-human-rights-anti-gay-ruling-1.786184

Pastor David Lynn was arrested in 2019 for preaching in Toronto's "gay village." While the pastor was seeking to frame his sermon as one of love, and kept a calm demeanor, it riled up the crowd, leading to his arrest for disturbing the peace. His arrest highlighted concerns over the limits of free speech, particularly religious speech. The Crown did not withdraw teh charges until a year later.

Criminal charges withdrawn against street preacher David Lynn | ARPA Canada

The Crown withdrew its criminal charges against David Lynn today, almost a year after he was arrested while street preaching in Toronto’s “gay village” at the opening of “Pride Month”. This case was politically charged from the outset. Lynn had been charged with two criminal offences: mischief...

arpacanada.ca

Another well-known case is that of Pastor William Whatcott, who faced legal action after distributing flyers in 2001-2002 that condemned homosexuality based on his interpretation of the Bible. In this particular case, the vocabulary was far more inflammatory, calling gays sodomites and child molesters. Whatcott's case went all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that his materials were hate speech, leading to his conviction.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/hate-speech-case-reaches-supreme-court-1.1036730

Now I will be the first to agree that Whatcott was downright nasty and out of line. But you have to understand that I'm approaching this from the American understanding of free speech. Here in the US, a person can tell me I'm Satan's seed, a kike, a genocidal Khazari hell bent on taking over the world, and it's LEGAL. It's what WE call free speech. Now the moment they lay hands on me, destroy my property, or urge others to, THEN it becomes a hate crime. But there is no law against hate speech here, even though it is nasty business. Compared to the freedom people have here, Canada simply is less free.

I wonder if you noticed something? In spite of being really, really hateful, all 3 of those were overturned -- meaning that Canada's legal system has said that your statement in Post #44 is false. You said: "Canada very definitely denies the right to free exercise of religion as well as freedom of speech. There has been more than one case where a Christian pastor has been prosecuted for saying homosexuality is a sin."

The fact that someone was prosecuted, but the courts eventually declined to convict, makes your statement FALSE.

But it is interesting, don't you think, that some of these "religious" types -- in the name of Jesus Christ who preached a doctrine of love -- should so need such hatred to make themselves feel big and important. Frankly, I would wish them all removed to the U.S., where that sort of thing is next to Godliness.

And I would ask you to look at your own Custom Title under your handle: "Loving God and my neighbor as myself."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I wonder if you noticed something? In spite of being really, really hateful, all 3 of those were overturned

First of all, that the arrests were even made in the first place is scandalous. It's like suggesting that the murder of George Floyd wasn't a scandal since Derek Chauvin was found guilty.

Second, only two of the three incidents were overturned. In the last example, the Supreme Court upheld that it was hate speech.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First of all, that the arrests were even made in the first place is scandalous. It's like suggesting that the murder of George Floyd wasn't a scandal since Derek Chauvin was found guilty.

That is a rather bizarre example in this context.

Second, only two of the three incidents were overturned. In the last example, the Supreme Court upheld that it was hate speech.

You really need to study more. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that only a part of what Bill Whatcott produced was hate speech. (Now, the fact that you don't think hate speech should be a crime does not matter in the least in Canada, since in our law, it can be. The definition is quite narrow, and the Supreme Court followed it very carefully.)

You need to consider that in the United States, incitement (for example to violence), even when only speech, is not covered by the First Amendment. Hate speech in Canada follows the same principle. When Whatcott spewed hatred towards gays and abortion, SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) upheld his right to do so. It is only when hate speech crosses a line, as did some of his flyers which included the words "kill the homosexuals." That is incitement. In Canada, it is illegal. In the United States, it is unprotected.

You might take a gander at this lovely gentleman who you are defending. When he was young, he took off and "lived on the streets." As someone who lived on the streets (before he did), and who came from an abusive background (as he did), I know something about how he lived. I'll leave it to you to try to figure how he lived on those Toronto streets, but I can tell you how I did -- and some of that included sex work to survive. Not proud of it -- but not ashamed, either. I wanted to survive.

But guess what -- I didn't become a hater. I haven't spent my life trying to villify others. That is all that Bill Whatcott knows. His fixations are against everything that Christ -- who he claims to have accepted -- stood for. I'm not a Christian, but I'm 100 times a better Christian than he is.

 

[anotherneil]

If the government does not provide laws for marriage contracts, then Secular Humanists, Buddhists, and other religions who see marriage as a secular concern would work to enact secular laws regarding marriage, as there is no religious route for marriage among these groups.

Governments already provide laws for contracts, in general. If they didn't, they wouldn't really be much of a government; providing laws for contracts is an essential part of having a government, like having borders.

I'm not sure why you say they would want to take such action, but since a marriage contract is still a contract, it seems based on what you're saying, there's no reason for them to take the type of action you say they would want to take.

 

[anotherneil]

There was a recent case where a Lutheran school on a Navajo reservation expelled some of the girls because they had attended a Navajo coming of age ceremony. The school said it was Satan worship.

Did the state/government have anything to do with this?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While I am relieved this isn't serious, I do not think this use of "hyperbole" was at all useful in making your point. Especially after more than one user has posted in this thread about how religious minorities - and Pagans specifically - get treated differently when it comes to the matter of religious liberty.

Years ago in Indianapolis a Wiccan couple was divorcing. The judge ordered the parents to "not expose their child to non-mainstream religions."

 

[crossfire]

Governments already provide laws for contracts, in general. If they didn't, they wouldn't really be much of a government; providing laws for contracts is an essential part of having a government, like having borders.

I'm not sure why you say they would want to take such action, but since a marriage contract is still a contract, it seems based on what you're saying, there's no reason for them to take the type of action you say they would want to take.

Well, this post:

That's what I'm talking about, marriage licenses being a legal requirement, not a religious requirement.

By involving itself in marriage, the state/government in the US is infringing on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, and states rights doesn't give them an excuse to ignore the Bill of Rights.

So the government regulating and enforcing contracts is a function of government, and marriage is a contract, then how does it follow that the government doing its job of regulating and enforcing contracts (in this case marriage contracts) infringing on the first clause of the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion​

​

since civil marriages have no religious test?

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof​

​

by empowering religious clerics to conduct weddings according to their faith?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's what WE call free speech.

I call it stupidity thats dragging America down and going backwards. We tolerate hate speech so we have society busting at the seems with unbridled hatred.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did the state/government have anything to do with this?

I'm not sure. I know that in the past, the government has been responsible for schools on reservations, and often contracted with churches for this. But I don't know what the present situation is.

 

[anotherneil]

Well, this post:

So the government regulating and enforcing contracts is a function of government, and marriage is a contract, then how does it follow that the government doing its job of regulating and enforcing contracts (in this case marriage contracts) infringing on the first clause of the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion​

​

since civil marriages have no religious test?

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof​

​

by empowering religious clerics to conduct weddings according to their faith?

That's a good way to put it - the government regulating contracts; this is where I have an issue, not only in terms of separation of church and state, but as a libertarian in general. It's one thing to have ground rules for contractual agreements - essential, fundamental reasons for the government to "regulate" contracts, such as basic structural requirements to be recognized as formal and legally binding (for example & hypothetically speaking - requiring that a written contract has to be black lettering on white paper, it has to be in a certain font and size, all "i"s have to be dotted and all "t"s have to be crossed, etc.), but having to get permission from the government to enter into a marriage or civil union with someone else, being prohibited by the government to marry outside your race, and prohibiting polygamy, are examples of what crosses the line and infringes on constitutional rights. Whether it's ground rules for contracts or unconstitutional laws, regulations are something that come from the legislative branch of government. Another way to put it is that laws pertaining to contractual agreements aren't at risk of being unconstitutional, provided they don't add to, or subtract anything from, a contractual agreement.

By having and enforcing (set aside "regulating") a contract, whether it's a retail store or restaurant owner suing a co-owner or a divorce, only the judicial branch of government is intervening, and only by going through the contract and facts of the case. It's not only ok for the court to be using laws pertaining to ground rules for contractual agreements, but it ought to be using them - especially if one of the litigants presses for them to be used. However, if there are laws that mandate the adding or taking away of any clauses that the contracting parties had agreed to, and those laws or clauses conflict with, or are inconsistent with, constitutional rights or the free exercise of constitutional rights, then they're unconstitutional.

You might say that laws pertaining specifically to marriage contracts, particularly by standardizing what's automatically included or excluded in the contract by themselves wouldn't be unconstitutional as long as they're an optional template that couples can choose to use or not use, and I would agree, but that's not the point of contention. The point of contention is compelling couples to abide with its "template" marriage contract that includes and excludes clauses prescribed by law; when those included and excluded clauses are modeled from religious rules on marriage, the government is playing favorites, accommodating religion, tailoring for religion, or giving religion an unfair advantage & I consider that to be a case of respecting an establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.

It doesn't really matter if such laws that require including or excluding clauses literally come from religion or has nothing to do with coming from religion; either way it can exclude some from having the contractual clauses that they want. If a couple's religious rules call for clauses that such laws exclude, or vice versa, then it's a case of constitutional infringement on free exercise of religion. Whatever the case is, the point is that there is relevance between the issue and the thread topic.

In general, litigants don't have to go to a state/government court to settle contractual dispute; they can go to arbitrators, which are separate, independent, private entities not run by or (financially & logistically) supported by the state. In the case of "religious marriages", those arbitrators could be clerics, church elders, church tribunals, etc.

I hope I clarified what you're asking about with my assessment or opinion, here; the way you had it worded & presented was unclear to me.

 

[anotherneil]

I'm not sure. I know that in the past, the government has been responsible for schools on reservations, and often contracted with churches for this. But I don't know what the present situation is.

Ah, ok; I see. In such a case I guess it would take a more in-depth analysis and details about what the situation is. I'm not sure what to think of it without that.

What's roughly analogous to this is the K-12 school choice issue; for private schools run by churches or in some way religious, my position on that is:

1. The private school has to comply with some basic curriculum standards; in other words, it has to provide a standard education (teach the 3 R's, etc.).

2. The school choice tuition reimbursement should only go towards funding the standard education, and not any religious courses, sessions, or content. The religious private school can have the option of billing parents separately, or letting the religious organization itself pick up the tab for the extra courses, sessions, or content that are religious. By religious courses, sessions, or content, I'm only referring to that which is designed for the sake of initiation and membership of the religious organization. If they happen to have a course or section of a course on the history of religion that isn't exclusive or specifically to the religious organization's history, and is presenting it in a neutral & objective way (with all the good and bad history of their religion), then I don't think it's necessary to exclude reimbursement for something like that.

 

[Argentbear]

The restore religious liberties, such as praying at school, as long as it is peaceful, Big Brother has to butt out or go to jail. Big Brother is not above law, even if they think they are and act like they are. We are not Communists, yet.

Prayer in school is and always has been legal. Students are free to pay as they see fit. What is not allowed is for the schools to force students to pray, or to indoctrinate students into a religion.

 

[crossfire]

That's a good way to put it - the government regulating contracts; this is where I have an issue, not only in terms of separation of church and state, but as a libertarian in general. It's one thing to have ground rules for contractual agreements - essential, fundamental reasons for the government to "regulate" contracts, such as basic structural requirements to be recognized as formal and legally binding (for example & hypothetically speaking - requiring that a written contract has to be black lettering on white paper, it has to be in a certain font and size, all "i"s have to be dotted and all "t"s have to be crossed, etc.), but having to get permission from the government to enter into a marriage or civil union with someone else, being prohibited by the government to marry outside your race, and prohibiting polygamy, are examples of what crosses the line and infringes on constitutional rights. Whether it's ground rules for contracts or unconstitutional laws, regulations are something that come from the legislative branch of government. Another way to put it is that laws pertaining to contractual agreements aren't at risk of being unconstitutional, provided they don't add to, or subtract anything from, a contractual agreement.

By having and enforcing (set aside "regulating") a contract, whether it's a retail store or restaurant owner suing a co-owner or a divorce, only the judicial branch of government is intervening, and only by going through the contract and facts of the case. It's not only ok for the court to be using laws pertaining to ground rules for contractual agreements, but it ought to be using them - especially if one of the litigants presses for them to be used. However, if there are laws that mandate the adding or taking away of any clauses that the contracting parties had agreed to, and those laws or clauses conflict with, or are inconsistent with, constitutional rights or the free exercise of constitutional rights, then they're unconstitutional.

You might say that laws pertaining specifically to marriage contracts, particularly by standardizing what's automatically included or excluded in the contract by themselves wouldn't be unconstitutional as long as they're an optional template that couples can choose to use or not use, and I would agree, but that's not the point of contention. The point of contention is compelling couples to abide with its "template" marriage contract that includes and excludes clauses prescribed by law; when those included and excluded clauses are modeled from religious rules on marriage, the government is playing favorites, accommodating religion, tailoring for religion, or giving religion an unfair advantage & I consider that to be a case of respecting an establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.

It doesn't really matter if such laws that require including or excluding clauses literally come from religion or has nothing to do with coming from religion; either way it can exclude some from having the contractual clauses that they want. If a couple's religious rules call for clauses that such laws exclude, or vice versa, then it's a case of constitutional infringement on free exercise of religion. Whatever the case is, the point is that there is relevance between the issue and the thread topic.

In general, litigants don't have to go to a state/government court to settle contractual dispute; they can go to arbitrators, which are separate, independent, private entities not run by or (financially & logistically) supported by the state. In the case of "religious marriages", those arbitrators could be clerics, church elders, church tribunals, etc.

I hope I clarified what you're asking about with my assessment or opinion, here; the way you had it worded & presented was unclear to me.

OK, the only thing I got out of this in regard to religious liberties that Americans currently lack is your claim of the practice of polygamy as a religious liberty. Did I miss anything else?

 

[anotherneil]

OK, the only thing I got out of this in regard to religious liberties that Americans currently lack is your claim of the practice of polygamy as a religious liberty. Did I miss anything else?

You only got one thing partially correct, for example what would "secular" polygamy be? The banning of polygamy could be the result of religious people who think that marriages should only be monogamous & in fact that's what the ban on polygamy here in the US might actually be about. If that's the case, then those who want to practice "secular" polygamy are having their right to separation of church and state infringed.

In general, it's not just a religious freedom infringement, it's also an infringement on the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

Polygamy is just one example and not essential to the underlying point; it's so much broader than that.