Religion is exempt from some laws and not others

[McCulloch]

Many countries share with the USA certain constitutional rights and freedoms. These usually include freedom of religion and freedom from various forms of unfair discrimination. What happens or what should happen when these freedoms come into conflict?

• Should a religion that would discriminate against a person of a certain racial group be protected in its discriminatory practices by constitutional law?
• Is a religion that does not allow women to hold certain positions simply because they are women in violation of any laws?
• Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?

What principles should one use to determine which laws can be broken in the name of religious freedom (discrimination against women for instance) and which ones cannot (polygamy for example)?

[palmera]

Only the Muslims are left doing that. Please just the facts, please.

How Ironic!

An immense part of America no longer speaks English and has no desire or comulsion to do so. Another extremely large part of America is living in self-induced segregation in inner-cities and seems to love it. Marxists are insanely happy about it too.

First, an "immense" part of America? This is simply untrue. Simply because certain people's have the audacity to speak to each other in their ethnic tongue doesn't mean they don't speak English. Unlike Americans, most of the world is bilingual (at least.) Further, "extremely large part of America living in self induced segregation in inner-cities:" a statement like this comes from ignorance. I'm sure that the socio-economic structure of America over the last 200 years has nothing to do with minorities and immigrants living in the inner-cities of this country. Surely, racism and xenophobia has nothing to do with it. And of course, let's not forget that we've never had a problem with both work related and social discrimination.

Oh yes, and the fact that they "seem to love it." Sure, that's probably mostly true. It's nice living in the projects where you could be shot or robbed, having your power shut off because you don't make enough at the three jobs you work to pay the electric bill and feed your family. Sure, it must be nice to send your children to a school where they have to walk through a metal detector just to make sure that no one has a gun. It would be grand living in an endless cycle of economic poverty which is an every day reminder that hard work doesn't pay off, that rags-to-riches is not only a myth, but a twisted one at that- knowing that if anything goes wrong at all, you or your child gets sick or hurt, that all the money you're saving up will be gone and you're back to ground zero.

And in every Church I have ever been in, is made up of almost every kind of person on Earth. Christianty comes in so many different expressions that it literally is a cross section of the decent world. You are welcomed to do the research yourself anytime.

I'm not sure where you live. Having traveled all over America, I've seen that whether you live in the south or the west coast, churches are the most segregated places on earth. This is not to say that you haven't experienced just the opposite, but your church attendance must be extremely fortunate, very selective, or well... While it's true that there are more Christians on earth, of more varying types of people and ethnicities, it does not therefore hold that Churches are the same way. Sure, when you gather 15,000 people into a mega church you might have a thousand minorities, but let's not kid ourselves that churches aren't segregated places of worship.

And yes, you take people's taxes. By living in society, by default, you benefit from taxes.

[micatala]

The First Amendment which mentions religion as foremost among freedoms, would be a good place to find a sensibile argument for sanity to exist in an unruly and evil world of those that do not want to believe in morality.

That's an extremely difficult sentance to parse. But let's press on...

No problem I know morailty is a tough concept to grasp in our age of brain-washed relativists.

I'm not sure what the last comment has to do with anything in the thread, and it seems to be nothing more than an ad hominem comment. Implying someone is brain-washed, especially when made as a bald assertion, can be construed as a personal attack. Just a friendly reminder.

[micatala]

The First Amendment which mentions religion as foremost among freedoms, would be a good place to find a sensibile argument for sanity to exist in an unruly and evil world of those that do not want to believe in morality.

That's an extremely difficult sentance to parse. But let's press on...

No problem I know morailty is a tough concept to grasp in our age of brain-washed relativists.

I have to admit, I had a difficult time with the sentence above as well.


You seem to be implying here, in the context of your other statements, that morality = your particular brand of Christianity, or that those who do not follow a religion of some sort that includes statements of 'moral absoluteness' are incapable of being moral. If I am wrong about this assessment of your position, please clarify. If not, please provide some evidence for this. I can certainly say from personal experience that many people who do not believe in God are perfectly capable of moral behavior and making moral judgments.

With regards to Muslims being the only people committing atrocities, one need only go back to the last decade in Rwanda to see that Christians are perfectly capable of truly massive and horrendous atrocities as well. I personally don't see the point in trying to blame a whole religion or culture for the bad behavior of a few, especially when there are many other factors and variable that contribute to such behavior besides the religion of the participants. I would address this to juliod's comments as well.

In addition, as juliod has said, the topic is about whether religions should be exempt from some laws and why. Let's leave the atrocities out of it.

Obviously, the context within the U.S. is that we do have a constitutional right to practice religion. So, to rephrase the question a bit, should this right automatically supersede other laws and rights when the come into conflict?

I found the description of the 'cult of naked arsonists' rather amusing. Should their practice of running naked through the streets take precedence over an ordinance on public decency, especially when the latter is not specifically enshrined in the constitution (we can talk hypothetically about this occuring in the U.S.)?

[McCulloch]

I found the description of the 'cult of naked arsonists' rather amusing. Should their practice of running naked through the streets take precedence over an ordinance on public decency, especially when the latter is not specifically enshrined in the constitution (we can talk hypothetically about this occuring in the U.S.)?

No need to talk hypothetically. It really did happen in Canada. Canada has similar constitutional rights as the USA (except that the right to bear arms is not constitutionally protected :2gun: ).

But the real question is which laws should be imposed on persons of religion and which ones should they get a religious exemption for? And most importantly, why? Clearly a (hypothetical) religious group which practices human sacrifice would be prosecuted and found guilty of crimes. So murder is not protected by religious freedom. But the right for an employer to discriminate on the basis of gender is protected by religious freedom. How is the decision made which laws and rights take priority?

[ShieldAxe]

Many countries share with the USA certain constitutional rights and freedoms. These usually include freedom of religion and freedom from various forms of unfair discrimination. What happens or what should happen when these freedoms come into conflict?

• Should a religion that would discriminate against a person of a certain racial group be protected in its discriminatory practices by constitutional law?
• Is a religion that does not allow women to hold certain positions simply because they are women in violation of any laws?
• Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?

What principles should one use to determine which laws can be broken in the name of religious freedom (discrimination against women for instance) and which ones cannot (polygamy for example)?

I can't think of any laws that should be suspended due to religious belief. Am I missing something?

[McCulloch]

I can't think of any laws that should be suspended due to religious belief. Am I missing something?

OK. You appear to disagree with almost all constitutional lawyers, the entire judiciary, legistlators, the executive and most religious organizations. Would you care to elaborate?

There is a well known church which does not allow persons of one particular gender to hold positions of significant authority. This would normally be considered discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the equivelant section of the US constitution. Would you, by force of law, attempt to force this organization to allow women priests?

[micatala]

I can't think of any laws that should be suspended due to religious belief. Am I missing something?

How about a Native American who uses Peyote as part of his or her religious practices? Should we (should we not) suspend drug laws in this case?

Should we force Catholics to allow women to be employed as priests?



My uninformed impression is that, at this point in time, we do not follow any general criteria in making these distinctions. Does anyone know if there are any such criteria that are followed in these cases, whether in Canada, the U.S., or elsewhere?

I will make some suggested possible criteria, for the sake of having something on the table:

1. The societal effect of making the exception. If granting the exception has minimal or no effect on the society at large, this would tend to favor making an exception.

2. The history of the practice that would be covered in an exception. If the practice is a very long-standing one, that has been consistently followed by those in the particular religion in question, and especially if the practice pre-dates the existence of the law-making body, this would tend to favor an exception being made.

3. If the practice is central or essential to the practice of the religion, this would tend to favor at least some accomodation.

4. The religion in question has a large number of adherents. As juliod has noted, whether one agrees with the religion or the particular practice in question, if a large number of people are extremely insistent that the practice is essential to the practice of their religion, the consequences of it being outlawed might be such that society 'does not want to go there.' (We maybe could call this the 'cowardice criteria?' ). Note that, if we take the word 'religion' out and simply let this criteria apply to any practice by any groups or individuals that they wish to engage in for any reason, this criteria could certainly be used to support the legality (in these cases the continuing legality) of pracitices like abortion, drinking, buying gas-guzzling Hummers, etc.

5. Now, an extension of 4 could be that, if the number of adherents is so large as to form a majority of the population, then they could vote in any exception they wanted for any reason. In some sense, this is exactly what I think did happen in many areas with respect to the enforced ban on teaching evolution (has anyplace ever had a law insisting on the teaching of creationisms?).

6. If the exception constitutes a violation of other basic rights, including the right of others to practice their religion, this tends to not favor the making of an exception.

This last, it seems, is the big issue. By not treating women fairly, for example, would not a religion be creating a rather large violation of constitutional rights?

Not sure if any of these really help, but I thought I would at least provide some targets for people to shoot at.

[ShieldAxe]

I can't think of any laws that should be suspended due to religious belief. Am I missing something?

OK. You appear to disagree with almost all constitutional lawyers, the entire judiciary, legistlators, the executive and most religious organizations. Would you care to elaborate?

There is a well known church which does not allow persons of one particular gender to hold positions of significant authority. This would normally be considered discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the equivelant section of the US constitution. Would you, by force of law, attempt to force this organization to allow women priests?

Firstly, I plead ignorance of the law which is why I was asking if I'm missing something. In my opinion a church is like private club. Private clubs can restrict membership. Presumably, that's allowed by law. I don't see it in the Constitution but it certainly seems to take place (The Girl Scouts is an example). If the church position you refer to is a paid position, then that would be job discrimination which is against the law and should be disallowed.

So, no I would not force churches to allow women as priests but is it acually illegal to restrict membership in a club?

[juliod]

So murder is not protected by religious freedom.

But would it be if it were practiced by the majority religion?

The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. It's hard to imagine that their society did not criminalize ordinary murder. Their sacrifices were simply "not murder" but a good a valid part of their society.

DanZ

[juliod]

If the church position you refer to is a paid position, then that would be job discrimination which is against the law and should be disallowed.

You must keep in mind that the 1st Amendment trumps labor law. It is settled law that government cannot regulate the conditions of employment of religious officials.

DanZ