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)?

[Cathar1950]

Good questions and I think the reasoning should follow other groups as well. But women are a good place to start because they cross all cultural classes of people. Also it is about 51% of the population and they have been here from the beginning. One argument that some churches use to stop women from becoming priest or ordained is that Jesus never ordained women of course he didn't ordain anyone as one scholar suggests.
I don't believe in any fall where women brought sin ito the world and therefore I see no reason for one man's death to take sin out of the world. It is an invention of Paul's and a poor analogy taken to extremes by many Christians.
What would happen if some wanted to sacrifice animals? What would animal rights activist think?
In Jeremiah's time every one sacrificed and ate the food themselves. Later priest say it can only take place in the temple and the priest get the left overs.

[juliod]

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?

Yes, and no.

Official religious positions are exempt from US labor and anti-discrimination law. This exemption is undesirable, but the only way to avoid mass unrest. There is simply no good option other than just letting the old cults practice thier tired old ways.

Religions, like a private club, can discriminate freely as long as they don't offer "public accomodation". In other words, as long as they actually are a church, not a business, they can refuse to let blacks in the door.

Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?

Not sure what you mean here.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?

Not sure what you mean here.

Polygamy
While there are strict restrictions on it, Islam allows for a man to have up to four wives. I guess the point of my question is why, when we allow some religions to practice age-old traditions which are clearly discriminatory and would otherwise be against our laws, do we disallow this ancient and honourable tradition allowed to Muslims? Is this not a form of religious discrimination?

Arson
From a January, 1999 article called The naked city

One hundred years ago this January, 8,000 Doukhobors from the port of Batum on the Black Sea settled in Canada in pursuit of a higher level of spiritual life. As they disembarked from the immigrant ship SS Lake Huron, each one hoped this was the Promised Land. But the transition for this pre-industrial, rural, Russian Christian sect was not easy; their concepts of pacifism, animal rights and anti-materialism split the Doukhobor community into three factions. The most active of these was the 'Sons of Freedom', whose millennial zeal manifested itself in now-legendary nude marches and acts of violence that ran counter to their fundamental tenet of non-violence. ...
When Verigin arrived in Canada in 1903, the radicals were disappointed by his lack of commitment to their cause. In renewed zeal, they called themselves Svobodniki (Freedomites) or the 'Sons of Freedom' (SOF). Inspired by Verigin's writings, they again took to the road to preach, only this time they marched in the nude, "in the manner of the first Adam and Eve".
On their way to "destroy the throne of Satan", the group chanced upon Verigin himself and forcibly freed the horse from his trap. But their march was intercepted by nearby villagers. Beaten and bleeding, they huddled together overnight exposed to the elements. Later, one recalled with amazement: "We remained naked and it was really wonderful to us that in such a wind we were not frozen. Those who stood guard over us publicly announced that the cold that came on was a very great cold, but not one of the naked was frozen." Marching on toward Yorkton, Saskatchewan, clothed but eating grass and leaves like their fellow animals, the SOF stripped before entering town. They were arrested and convicted of indecent exposure. Refusing to be bound over to keep the peace, they served jail terms before being returned to their home villages.
The peace was not to last long. Nakedness was a step closer to holiness, but there were other impediments to holy life, including technology. Zealots destroyed a wheat field with a roller, and the purifying powers of fire were applied to farm machinery.
The next march saw the SOF in long blue gowns and wide-brimmed straw hats chanting and denouncing the impure life and the moderate Peter the Lordly. They rented a house in Fort William for a New Year's parade and marched naked through its snow-covered streets. Rounded up by police, they were taken back to the house where they sat naked on the floor around communal piles of fruit and nuts. A ceremonial burning of clothes in spring and more nude walkabouts resulted in further arrests and prison terms. ...
Train tracks and a massive electrical power pylon joined the list of targets of the SOF, who continued to torch their own and their neighbour's homes. Despite the attacks over decades, death was never the intent and rarely occurred. The curious combination of nudity and burnings were always the preferred means of resisting outside influence.
In their study of the Doukhobors, George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic described the effect: "The exciting break of fire as a kerosene-soaked house burst into flame, [and] the deep thud of exploding dynamite, carried an irresistible excitement. Fire had become its own end, a passion that excited some of the arsonists to the point of orgasm."
In all the manifestations of protest and religious mania, it is difficult to envisage one more bizarre than ranks of nude arsonists ejaculating into the night air as the flames leap higher and higher to the glory of God. ...

More info
While it seems strange to us, these people's religion involves practices which the rest of us would consider criminal. Why is it that these particular law breakers do not get a constitutional exemption while other apparent religiously motivated law breakers do? Is it that only certain laws apply to religious organizations?

[juliod]

Why is it that these particular law breakers do not get a constitutional exemption while other apparent religiously motivated law breakers do?

It has to do with numbers, of course. As I said, these undesirable exceptions must be made in order to avoid large-scale religious upheaval.

But I would like to hear from some of the theists here about why they think these exceptions should be made.

DanZ

[1John2_26]

Hmm, I think that "blacks" and "women" are not the real subject matter here. But we'll let it play out.

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.

UNLESS,

Those desireable people that live good and decent lives look better than the warn out dispicable miscreants wandering through bars and streets looking for another physical encounter, the result of which will probably need more tax dollars to support the common negative outcome.

Religions are entirely free for free people to choose and the better environments found in a religious institutions should remain a priority of a rational society. Otherwise the patients could indeed be running the asylum.

[juliod]

The First Amendment which mentions religion as foremost among freedoms...

Or else the most problematic of political controversies. You know, the one people are butchering each other over all the time.

...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...

w(o)rn out dispicable miscreants

Bigotry against non-believers...

wandering through bars and streets looking for another physical encounter

...and sexual obsession...

the result of which will probably need more tax dollars to support the common negative outcome.

... then hating the poor, greed, and whining about taxes, which Jesus told you to stop doing.

That's a serious trifecta for a single sentance. I'm impressed.

the better environments found in a religious institutions should remain a priority of a rational society.

So your ideal is a heavily racially segregated society? I mean, churches are the least integrated places left in the US, probably the world.

But that's not the point. You didn't actually participate in the thread. Do you think churches should be exempt from labor laws and allowed to discriminate, as they do?

DanZ

[1John2_26]

Quote:
The First Amendment which mentions religion as foremost among freedoms...

Or else the most problematic of political controversies. You know, the one people are butchering each other over all the time.

Only the Muslims are left doing that. Please just the facts, please. You're getting warmer on what the true topic is of this post though.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
w(o)rn out dispicable miscreants

Bigotry against non-believers...

Just the facts.

Quote:
wandering through bars and streets looking for another physical encounter

...and sexual obsession...

Just the facts. What do you think will be the evetual subject of this post?

Quote:
the result of which will probably need more tax dollars to support the common negative outcome.

... then hating the poor, greed, and whining about taxes, which Jesus told you to stop doing.

I have embraced Jesus, morailty and suffer none of the ills mentioned here. I take no ones tax dollars either.

That's a serious trifecta for a single sentance. I'm impressed.

I bet your not.

Quote:
the better environments found in a religious institutions should remain a priority of a rational society.

So your ideal is a heavily racially segregated society? I mean, churches are the least integrated places left in the US, probably the world.

You don't get out much do you? 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.

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.

But that's not the point. You didn't actually participate in the thread. Do you think churches should be exempt from labor laws and allowed to discriminate, as they do?

Let me bring my pig into a Mosque and ask them the same question.

[Cathar1950]

What if it is part of their religion to sexually segregated not just racially segregated.
juliod wrote:

Do you think churches should be exempt from labor laws and allowed to discriminate, as they do?

How about women, if your religion says it is ok to exploit them?
After all they could lead down the road to flesh and away from the spirit.
Shouldn't they be told how sinful they are bring sin into the world and all?
Why should moral men want to be around them? But we can't let them lose they will destroy us all with the fruit of there fleshy wickedness. We should never let them into our homes.
I am being sarcastic!

[juliod]

To 1john:

I wrote a real scathing reply to your last post last night,but accudently deleted it somehow. In any case, I think it was the wrong thing to do. There's no reason to reply to your squealing. You have not yet written anything relevant to the thread.

Do you have an opinion on why some religious practices are exempted and other are not, and whether this is a good or bad thing?

DanZ