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)?

[jcrawford]

Religious consent would be specified as such, specifically.

Does putting the word 'religious' actually meaning anything, or does it just make the sentence one word longer?

Oh, yes. Putting the word Jewish, Christian or Islamic before something can change it's meaning, definition and interpretation beyond secular recognition. Just take the words 'community, society or law' for instance.

Sorry. The "issue" wouldn't be legally aborted at all if medical doctors had no prior secular right to kill the "issue" in the first place.

I have to say, I don't have a lot of patience for trying to get around the issue of what rights the woman should have by throwing the doctor into it. This is merely a subterfuge that is used by the anti-abortion folks because they think it is politically easier to argue against the doctors than it is to argue against women. Doctors are a smaller group, and it is easier to infringe on the rights of the women when you are not arguing directly against them.

What's wrong with men challenging the self-proclaimed rights of male abortionists? Seems rather more manly and masculine than harassing defenseless feminist abortionists or butchering defenseless female fetuses.

[micatala]

Oh, yes. Putting the word Jewish, Christian or Islamic before something can change it's meaning, definition and interpretation beyond secular recognition. Just take the words 'community, society or law' for instance.

Yes, it could change the meaning, depending on what you apply the adjective to. As I've said before, what language means depends on common usage. The 'Jewish community' would be a phrase in common usage. The phrase 'Jewish remote control' would not be in common usage, and is quite nonsensical.

I have never heard anyone refer to 'religious consent' to a medical procedure before you, and it seems to make as much sense as 'religous remote control.' If you would like to specifically define what you mean, since you are making up your own meanings anyway, that is fine.


I see from the rest of your post that you fully buy into the idea that this subterfuge is a good tactic.

[jcrawford]

I have never heard anyone refer to 'religious consent' to a medical procedure before you, and it seems to make as much sense as 'religous remote control.' If you would like to specifically define what you mean, since you are making up your own meanings anyway, that is fine.

As a Christian, I consent to discussing these things with another Christian like you.

I see from the rest of your post that you fully buy into the idea that this subterfuge is a good tactic.

A good tactic, yes. Christian subterfuge, no. Stealth, maybe, until detected, exposed and vulnerable to a withering enemy barrage.

[micatala]

So are you saying that 'Christian consent' means any consent given by a Christian, and 'Muslim consent' means any consent given by a Muslim?


At any rate, to reiterate. . . .

. . . . we do seem to be getting a bit off-topic. The thread is meant to address when should exemptions to law be granted on a religious basis. I don't see that you have explicitly indicated any laws that we are or should be granting exemptions to on a religious basis. Are you arguing that woman who are part of certain religious groups should not have a right to abortions? This is different than the question you raise about marital rights of the husband. Please explicitly say which laws you would argue exemptions for and on what basis.

[jcrawford]

So are you saying that 'Christian consent' means any consent given by a Christian, and 'Muslim consent' means any consent given by a Muslim?

Yes, something along those lines. Christian or Muslim consent would be explicity Christian or Muslim if the consent explicitly stated such. Just like Miss, Mrs or Ms explicitly identifies a woman as a female and Dr. explicitly identifies one's profession as a doctor. Perhaps Jews, Christians and Muslims need some special appellation or title by which they may be more readily identified in an introduction in order to be exempted from certain secular customs and laws. (I'm trying to stay on topic here)

Let's see. Muslims could use the title Mus., Sun. or Shi.
Christians, Chris., Cat. or Prot.
And Jews, Orth., Con., Ref. or Sec.

. . . . we do seem to be getting a bit off-topic. The thread is meant to address when should exemptions to law be granted on a religious basis. I don't see that you have explicitly indicated any laws that we are or should be granting exemptions to on a religious basis. Are you arguing that woman who are part of certain religious groups should not have a right to abortions?

No. Just that secular and religiously affiliated medical men shouldn't have the right to practice their abortion skills on women of other faiths and religions without their religious affiliations being explicity documented in the informed consent agrrement.

This is different than the question you raise about marital rights of the husband. Please explicitly say which laws you would argue exemptions for and on what basis.

I'm not as good a legislator as I am a complainer but I would argue for religious exemptions from all secular laws which inhibit, restrict or prohibit the free exercise and political expression of the established Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions in America.

[micatala]

Are you arguing that woman who are part of certain religious groups should not have a right to abortions?

No. Just that secular and religiously affiliated medical men shouldn't have the right to practice their abortion skills on women of other faiths and religions without their religious affiliations being explicity documented in the informed consent agrrement.

This would be a religious exception, then.

Does 'secular and religiously affiliated medical men' includes all medical men? If not, then you are arguing for a law that applies to only these 'affiliated' men. You are also arguing for a law that is discriminatory on the basis of gender.

Your law would also be a religious exception for the women, as it seems to apply only those of faith.

I would say, as I think has been said above, that almost no woman would care about this.

I would argue for religious exemptions from all secular laws which inhibit, restrict or prohibit the free exercise and political expression of the established Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions in America.

In my view, then, there are no laws for you to argue exemption from.

[McCulloch]

Just like Miss, Mrs or Ms explicitly identifies a woman as a female and Dr. explicitly identifies one's profession as a doctor. Perhaps Jews, Christians and Muslims need some special appellation or title by which they may be more readily identified in an introduction in order to be exempted from certain secular customs and laws.

Let's see. Muslims could use the title Mus., Sun. or Shi.
Christians, Chris., Cat. or Prot.
And Jews, Orth., Con., Ref. or Sec.

What a great idea! Jewish women could all have the middle name of Sarah and Jewish men could all have the middle name of Israel. They would be allowed to live in their own separate communities.

[Cathar1950]

How come Jews get the whole word and every one else gets a cool abbreviation? Hey there is that cat Joe he married a pro.

[micatala]

Perhaps Jews, Christians and Muslims need some special appellation or title by which they may be more readily identified in an introduction in order to be exempted from certain secular customs and laws. (I'm trying to stay on topic here)

Are you suggesting the state mandate such appellations?

Wouldn't this be counter to the claim that you have consistently made elsewhere that each person be allowed to designate themselves as they see fit?

It seems to me that, at one point, you had taken to insisting you were descended from neanderthals, yay, even that you were a neanderthal. You insisted that you should be able even to claim your own ancestry to be whatever you wished, even if there was objective evidence to the contrary.

THis is quite an about face. Now you are saying that people cannot even allow themselves to use religious designations as they see fit, let alone claim whatever ancestry they want.

[palmera]

Let's see. Muslims could use the title Mus., Sun. or Shi.
Christians, Chris., Cat. or Prot.
And Jews, Orth., Con., Ref. or Sec.

Why stop here? Let's hop on the segregation train! Woo woo! "Jews, here are your stars back, make sure you place them where we can see them. Muslims, here's a pillar- no, Mr. Abdallah- that goes on the outside of your jacket. Because we need to know you're not one of us silly! Christians, do you want a cross? perhaps a $ or a gavel? Oh heck, here's a name tag that says 'President'- after all, you have a lock on that position here in the grand ol' US of A."