What rights do religions have from the state?

[tomspug]

Is it the duty of the law to protect religions? Is it possible that LAW can theoretically take away constitutional rights by giving them to other people?

For example, in Britain, law is being used to protect Sharia courts. It is not imposing religion on other people, but it is ACKNOWLEDGING the religious beliefs of its populous as being important (considering that THEY are the ones that make up the state).

Is that state-sponsored religion? No, it is not. It is the PROTECTION of religious rights.

An extreme case would be the legal BANNING of a religious practice "for the protection and rights of others". What rights is it protecting, besides the law being swayed by the insecurity of the non-religious and religious competitors? Unless it is infringing on the rights of others, how could it possibly be right for a law to do this? It is only through ideological moral superiority that courts and law-makers can come to these conclusions.

There are idiots (pardon me) that think that having the Ten Commandments within 20 feet of a government building is threatening the rights of others, as if a state is sponsoring a religion. Give me a break! How is this any different than some dope calling a mall about being upset that there is a Nativity scene in the lobby. As if any acknowledgment of the existence of religion is a threat to people's rights. When did "rights" become "comfort"?

When DID rights become about comfort? When our nation itself began its obsession with comfort, that's what. We like our government, our religion, our education system, our relationships, to all be COMFORTABLE... What an awesome culture we have right now... not.

Comfort is the root of tyranny. That's what.

And, of course, it goes both ways. A religion cannot promote a law simply because the alternative would make them "uncomfortable". The only thing that matters is rights. This is a free country, after all. And religion is a right too... but people seem to forget that in their obsession with secularism.

 

[No*s]

Religions do not have rights. Individuals do. The same may be said of any community (there are no $IDENTITY_GROUP rights). Religious practices and organizations are protected, because their prohibition would interfere with the individual's free exercise of conscience, provided said individual isn't out putting people's head on a pike. I tend to think we ought to have a thick skin if a given practice doesn't physically threaten us, impede our rights, or set us aside as second-class citizens.

So, I wouldn't care much if a judge had verses from the Koran, the Tripikata, or the Bible on his office wall, so long as he administers the law of the USA not his religion. I don't much care if monuments exist, but I'd rather not see new ones be made; they are just vestiges of a bygone era (and no, I don't tend to favor their removal provided they don't serve as religious foci).

 

[deseretgov]

Great post tomspug

 

[Heneni]

When DID rights become about comfort?

I can fight for my right to party....but i cant fight for or against the person ill be at the party. Ill be me.

Religion is a way of life, not an addition to our lives. If there is an apparant coallition between state and church, one is fooling the other.

Heneni

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it the duty of the law to protect religions?

No. Ideally, the State shouldn't even attempt to tell a religious entity from a non-religious one.

Is it possible that LAW can theoretically take away constitutional rights by giving them to other people?

I don't follow you. It certainly is, since it is the Law that defines constitutional rights to begin with.

For example, in Britain, law is being used to protect Sharia courts. It is not imposing religion on other people, but it is ACKNOWLEDGING the religious beliefs of its populous as being important (considering that THEY are the ones that make up the state).

Is that state-sponsored religion? No, it is not. It is the PROTECTION of religious rights.

I respectfully disagree, Tomspug. Wise as the British State has indeed been on these matters, I still think this was a gesture that ought not to have been needed in the first place.

Of course, the UK has the Anglican and Scottish Churches, so it is already sponsoring religions anyway. I guess sponsoring others that aren't aligned with the Crown is second best.

An extreme case would be the legal BANNING of a religious practice "for the protection and rights of others". What rights is it protecting, besides the law being swayed by the insecurity of the non-religious and religious competitors? Unless it is infringing on the rights of others, how could it possibly be right for a law to do this?

You answered your own question. Quite a few laws (a sizeable percentage of them, I would guess) have little justification beyond a perceived need to either protect or deny rights to specific people.

It is only through ideological moral superiority that courts and law-makers can come to these conclusions.

Sorry, not true. When the Law recognizes the existence of a Faith, it has a very hard time avoiding either aligning itself with it or discriminating against it. Worse yet, it has an even harder time avoiding the accusations of doing so.

Think about it. Which reason there is for the State to recognize a Faith? What if it fails to recognize one?

There are idiots (pardon me) that think that having the Ten Commandments within 20 feet of a government building is threatening the rights of others, as if a state is sponsoring a religion. Give me a break! How is this any different than some dope calling a mall about being upset that there is a Nativity scene in the lobby. As if any acknowledgment of the existence of religion is a threat to people's rights. When did "rights" become "comfort"?

When the power of the State began to be enough to protect some groups at the detriment of others, I suppose.

When DID rights become about comfort? When our nation itself began its obsession with comfort, that's what. We like our government, our religion, our education system, our relationships, to all be COMFORTABLE... What an awesome culture we have right now... not.

Comfort is the root of tyranny. That's what.

And, of course, it goes both ways. A religion cannot promote a law simply because the alternative would make them "uncomfortable".

Of course it can. As can anyone, really. It shouldn't go very far if it has no sounder point, but that's not always how it works, for good or worse.

The only thing that matters is rights. This is a free country, after all. And religion is a right too... but people seem to forget that in their obsession with secularism.

Religion, when acknowledge by the State, very easily intrudes in the rights of others. I don't see why tax exemptions should be applied to religious beings, for instance. Taxpayers have no inherent duty to agree with the State's understanding of just which Faiths are "truly" religions.

 

[blackout]

That largely depends on weather the religious organization in question
takes/agrees to comply with the stipulations of the 501c3 tax exemption status.

 

[texan1]

A religion cannot promote a law simply because the alternative would make them "uncomfortable". The only thing that matters is rights. This is a free country, after all. And religion is a right too... but people seem to forget that in their obsession with secularism.

I AGREE. But unfortunately, money talks. As we have seen, if an organization - religious or otherwise - has enough money, resources and lobbyists - they can affect legislation. It's money that rules I'm afraid.

 

[deseretgov]

But it still takes a person to vote. I've yet to see a dollar bill walk into a voting both and cast a vote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it the duty of the law to protect religions? Is it possible that LAW can theoretically take away constitutional rights by giving them to other people?

For example, in Britain, law is being used to protect Sharia courts. It is not imposing religion on other people, but it is ACKNOWLEDGING the religious beliefs of its populous as being important (considering that THEY are the ones that make up the state).

Actually, it's an acknowledgement that arbitration and alternative dispute resolution are important, as are the freedom for people to do so in the way they want. The law that "Sharia courts" operate under doesn't have anything to do with religion itself; it allows people to arbitrate their disputes however they want (within reasonable limits, of course).

An extreme case would be the legal BANNING of a religious practice "for the protection and rights of others". What rights is it protecting, besides the law being swayed by the insecurity of the non-religious and religious competitors? Unless it is infringing on the rights of others, how could it possibly be right for a law to do this? It is only through ideological moral superiority that courts and law-makers can come to these conclusions.

I think you should take this up with your government, who saw fit to ban Rastafarians' religious practices involving marijuana and Native Americans' religious practices involving peyote.

There are idiots (pardon me) that think that having the Ten Commandments within 20 feet of a government building is threatening the rights of others, as if a state is sponsoring a religion. Give me a break!

It is sponsoring of a religion... or at least preferential treatment of a religion. Government monuments are statements about that government... about the things that the nation values. Personally, I see no merit in declaring that the nation values monotheism and resting on the Sabbath.

How is this any different than some dope calling a mall about being upset that there is a Nativity scene in the lobby.

A mall is private property. A courthouse is public property.

As if any acknowledgment of the existence of religion is a threat to people's rights. When did "rights" become "comfort"?

It's not a matter of merely acknowledging that religion exists. It's about the statement that religious monuments and displays represent. They imply a connection between that religion and the government.

And, of course, it goes both ways. A religion cannot promote a law simply because the alternative would make them "uncomfortable". The only thing that matters is rights. This is a free country, after all. And religion is a right too... but people seem to forget that in their obsession with secularism.

Hmm. I think I see secularism in a different way than you do: it's based on the idea of making what's common to all of us actually common to all of us. I don't think that's an inherently bad thing, and I think that by removing the imposition of beliefs on those who don't want them, it actually encourages, not hinders, freedom of religion.

 

[Elessar]

On the specific case of the ten commandments being on the wall of/near to a court of law, let me go into a concrete example of something else. On a courthouse in a suburban/rural county near my city that shall remain nameless, there is the inscription of the beginning of the edict of the Justinian Code. This is reliably a secular law code, and thus, does not fall under religious law. But the Justinian Code itself is highly offensive - it declares and establishes the Greek Orthodox Church as the only true faith, bans Jews from engaging in most businesses, forbids intermarriage between faith, forbids the construction of non-Orthodox places of worship, and, worst, forbade the recitation of the Sh'ma Yisrael (Judaism's most important prayer) in ANY language and even the use of the Hebrew Language for any reason whatsoever.

Yet this a "secular" monument, which no one goes against because its not "religious" and only recognizes the contributions of an early law code to modern American society. And, alright, fine - it is, and I will not protest against it. But what is wrong with a monument to another early law code, which has had a major impact on the development of American civilization, simply because it happens to be in a religious text? It is no more or less a religious law code than the Justinian, it is only paraded against because it happens to be in a body of religious scripture.

Now, of course, this means that I believe that it is not wrong for a public building to have monuments to things which have without question affected the development of the modern America. Of course, the Ten Commandments being given a special place is not acceptable either - obviously, we as a society do not follow all of its precepts, nor those of the remainder of the Law Code that it begins. But to recognize the contribution of the laws of the Torah and the Ten Commandments to American culture and society is not a violation of anyone's religious rights - only to recognize it to the exclusion of others.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That largely depends on weather the religious organization in question
takes/agrees to comply with the stipulations of the 501c3 tax exemption status.

Speaking of...

Why should churches be exempt from tax? I see so many ministers in expensive suits and driving cars etc etc etc while a block down the road are homes with virtually zero income and their children have no choice but to walk barefoot to school!

 

[LuisDantas]

On a courthouse in a suburban/rural county near my city that shall remain nameless, there is the inscription of the beginning of the edict of the Justinian Code. This is reliably a secular law code, and thus, does not fall under religious law. But the Justinian Code itself is highly offensive - it declares and establishes the Greek Orthodox Church as the only true faith, bans Jews from engaging in most businesses, forbids intermarriage between faith, forbids the construction of non-Orthodox places of worship, and, worst, forbade the recitation of the Sh'ma Yisrael (Judaism's most important prayer) in ANY language and even the use of the Hebrew Language for any reason whatsoever.

So it would appear that it is not at all secular, don't you agree?

Yet this a "secular" monument, which no one goes against because its not "religious" and only recognizes the contributions of an early law code to modern American society. And, alright, fine - it is, and I will not protest against it. But what is wrong with a monument to another early law code, which has had a major impact on the development of American civilization, simply because it happens to be in a religious text? It is no more or less a religious law code than the Justinian, it is only paraded against because it happens to be in a body of religious scripture.

Sounds unlikely. I've never seen or heard of any such protests for so flimsy a reason. It usually only happens when there is a fair chance of someone actually acting on the belief represented.

Or, more often, when the protesters are themselves aligned with some religious faith.

Now, of course, this means that I believe that it is not wrong for a public building to have monuments to things which have without question affected the development of the modern America. Of course, the Ten Commandments being given a special place is not acceptable either - obviously, we as a society do not follow all of its precepts, nor those of the remainder of the Law Code that it begins. But to recognize the contribution of the laws of the Torah and the Ten Commandments to American culture and society is not a violation of anyone's religious rights - only to recognize it to the exclusion of others.

Is this really a matter of simple recognition, however? I think not. Not when currency has appeals to God's protection and courts make demands involving God and the Bible.

 

[tomspug]

Speaking of...

Why should churches be exempt from tax? I see so many ministers in expensive suits and driving cars etc etc etc while a block down the road are homes with virtually zero income and their children have no choice but to walk barefoot to school!

It's an awful paradox...

But at the same time, people need an income. Churches are tax-exempt because the church itself has no CEO, no ladder of income. There is, literally, no profit structure, which certainly qualifies as a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. If a pastor wasn't paid, he probably would be forced to leave, and the church would continue on, pastorless.

Now, on the other hand, if a pastor is being OVER-paid... well, that's just irresponsible, but it doesn't qualify the removal of tax-exempt status. I mean, what about every OTHER non-profit organization in the world... last time I checked, people that work for them make quite a bit of money!

 

[LuisDantas]

Tomspug, I am not well aware of USA regulations about non-profit organizations.

Are they usually tax-exempt? If so, on what grounds and under which restrictions?

Is there a compelling reason why a religion must have tax exemption?

 

[doppelganger]

Speaking of...

Why should churches be exempt from tax? I see so many ministers in expensive suits and driving cars etc etc etc while a block down the road are homes with virtually zero income and their children have no choice but to walk barefoot to school!

They offer a service with commercial value. They sell identity, not unlike a Starbuck's these days. In the age of information, that tax-exempt status no longer makes much sense.

 

[Heneni]

In the age of information, that tax-exempt status no longer makes much sense.

hu?....

 

[doppelganger]

hu?....

They sell information for money. It's not unlike "Tide" detergent or the "Dallas Cowboys." Religion is a business that frequently shares enormous profits among a select few at the top to create the illusion of being non-profit. Unfortunately, they are usually just non-prophet.

 

[Heneni]

They sell information for money.

The fool who believes that he has to pay for revelation from god is asking to be robbed.

Heneni

 

[LuisDantas]

The fool who believes that he has to pay for revelation from god is asking to be robbed.

Maybe so. But but priests are people too, and there is no good reason for them to be paid (indirectly or otherwise) by the government with taxpayer money.

Let each religion figure out how to fund themselves on their own. People do that all the time for matters that are supposedly less important to them, without demanding tax exemptions or other privileges. It is not the State's business to subsidize religions. It violates the principle of separation between Church and State, if for no other reason because that requires giving the government the power to decide which religions are legitimate.

 

[methylatedghosts]

It's an awful paradox...

But at the same time, people need an income. Churches are tax-exempt because the church itself has no CEO, no ladder of income. There is, literally, no profit structure, which certainly qualifies as a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. If a pastor wasn't paid, he probably would be forced to leave, and the church would continue on, pastorless.

Now, on the other hand, if a pastor is being OVER-paid... well, that's just irresponsible, but it doesn't qualify the removal of tax-exempt status. I mean, what about every OTHER non-profit organization in the world... last time I checked, people that work for them make quite a bit of money!

Don't be so sure.

My mum works for Epilepsy New Zealand as a field officer providing education and advocacy to the public.

She makes less than $20k per year.

Their intire income is generated through fundraising and lottery grants, and donations.

It is not government funded.

The budget is always being stretched.