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)?

[McCulloch]

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.

Yes it does, but should it?

[McCulloch]

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?

The last time I checked, the position of priest was a paid position.

[McCulloch]

In Are Christians the Target of Hate Crimes? I found another exemption.
It appears as if the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 319.3(b) allows for the good faith expression of religious belief to be excepted from the Hate Crimes law. Is that right? Is that just? Can anyone still say that Canada is outlawing Christianity?

(1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Section 319

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

Subsection 718.2

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner or child,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

[micatala]

Whereas:

1. Several unnamed threads currently towards the top of this forum have suggested that we treat different religions differently with respect to abortion law and

2. said contentions seem to be relevant to this thread and

3. this thread seems to have a whole lot more intellectual merit than other said unnamed threads (IMHO )

I thought it would be good to bring this thread back into view.



So far, we have examples of religions exemptions from labor law (no female Catholic Priests) and hate crimes law.

We do not have exceptions for human sacrifice, arson, and running nake through the streets.

Not to blow my own horn, but I think it would be worth discussing when and why we should or should not make such exceptions. Here are the criteria I previously forwarded for discussion.

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.

What do you all think?

[jcrawford]

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.

What do you all think?

Since state recognition of religious accomodations or exemptions for kosher, halal and abortion practices are made on a regular basis, I don't see how religious identification of any institution providing these services would interfere with anyone else's basic rights, religion or lack thereof.

[Cathar1950]

Seems reasonable to me micatala.
I wonder if drugs were allowed in all religious practice if we would have as many drug problems? Mind altering is preferable to brain-washing.
I only mentioned it because I was reading a book on drugs and religion.


jcrawford wrote:

Since state recognition of religious accomodations or exemptions for kosher, halal and abortion practices are made on a regular basis, I don't see how religious identification of any institution providing these services would interfere with anyone else's basic rights, religion or lack thereof.

How did abortion get in there? I don't believe abortion is a religious practice or any one is forcing abortions on any one. I do see where for religious reasons there are those that oppose abortion. I don't think any one is stopping others from the eucharist because it is cannibalism .

[jcrawford]

Seems reasonable to me micatala.
I wonder if drugs were allowed in all religious practice if we would have as many drug problems? Mind altering is preferable to brain-washing.
I only mentioned it because I was reading a book on drugs and religion.

jcrawford wrote:

Since state recognition of religious accomodations or exemptions for kosher, halal and abortion practices are made on a regular basis, I don't see how religious identification of any institution providing these services would interfere with anyone else's basic rights, religion or lack thereof.

How did abortion get in there?

Same way drugs and drug problems did.

I don't believe abortion is a religious practice or any one is forcing abortions on any one.

Exemptions from abortions is a religious claim and practice, as is fully informed and written consent a legal requirement and practice.

I do see where for religious reasons there are those that oppose abortion.

There are also religious and legal reasons for identifying atheists and secular Jews in the business of practicing abortion on Catholics and Protestants without their fully informed and written consent.

[Cathar1950]

Same way drugs and drug problems did.

I know of religions that do use drugs as part of their religious practice. I don't know anyone that that aborts for religious practice.

Exemptions from abortions is a religious claim and practice, as is fully informed and written consent a legal requirement and practice.

No one is forcing any one to have an abortion except some in some sweat shops owned by republicans outside the USA.
Do you know what Exemptions are?

There are also religious and legal reasons for identifying atheists and secular Jews in the business of practicing abortion on Catholics and Protestants without their fully informed and written consent.

There are no aborting being done by Jewish doctors with out consent. You talking nonsense. There are no legal reasons for identification and what ever religious reasons you might have are irrelevant and none of your business.

[jcrawford]

Same way drugs and drug problems did.

I know of religions that do use drugs as part of their religious practice. I don't know anyone that that aborts for religious practice.

Atheists and secular Jews abort in their medical practice. Orthodox Jews and Catholics abhor abortions in their religious practice.

No one is forcing any one to have an abortion except some in some sweat shops owned by republicans outside the USA.

Communists, atheists and secular Jews force women to get abortions without their fully informed religious consent.

Do you know what Exemptions are?

The question is, do you?

There are no aborting being done by Jewish doctors with out consent.

It's being done without full disclosure and written religious consent.

You talking nonsense.

No, I'm talking religious sense.

There are no legal reasons for identification and what ever religious reasons you might have are irrelevant and none of your business.

There are plenty of political reasons why atheists and secular Jews shouldn't be indiscriminately practicing abortions on Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or Protestant mothers.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

As per the rules, please provide evidence for the assertions you make.

Communists, atheists and secular Jews force women to get abortions without their fully informed religious consent.

This assertion has been made repeatedly with no evidence offered in support. Especially as it could be construed as an inflammatory statement, it behooves the person making this statement to provide evidence that this actually occurs.