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)?

[micatala]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

What does "respecting" mean? Well, you go to the dictionary, you look it up, and respecting means concerning, regarding, having to do with, dealing with. Hmm. That's very interesting. . . .

And you know what's interesting? Those words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law" concerning, dealing with, having to do with, in regard to "an establishment of religion," they have the same significance. Those words tell the Congress of the United States that this is a subject they are not to touch, they're not to get involved with it, they're not by law to put their hands on it.

[Now] if Congress can't make a law on this subject in any way--see, they can't make a law establishing a religion, but by the same token, if they can't touch it at all, if there happens to be an established religion somewhere in America (as there were in almost all of the original states of the United States, just, by the by, at the time that the amendment was passed)--this also means Congress can't touch them, Congress can't change them, Congress can't make decisions with "respect" to those things.

This is a very interesting, broad, and nonstandard way of understanding the word 'respecting' with respect to legal doctrine. Does anyone seriously think that the founding fathers meant to 'establish' only those religions existing at that time? That they would allow these religions to have state support, but never let any other religions become state supported? This is exactly against the whole reason they enacted the establishment clause. It was precisely because of the abuse of state sponsored, affiliated, or supported religions in Europe that many came to the U.S. and that the founders were so concerned about protecting religious freedom in the constitution.


In addition, you have yet to show that any of the laws you object to explicitly address religion, so the whole point is moot. If the law says you cannot burn buildings, and a certain religious group feels it is there duty to burn certain buildings, then that is their problem, not a problem with the law. The law was not put there just to inconvenience their religious observances. The fact that they don't like the law does not mean they are being persecuted in any way, unless the law applies only to them.

1John also has complained that some of these laws are 'new', as if that must mean they were put in place specifically against Christians. Again, this arguement is fallacious. THis seems to be saying that no new laws that have any impact on certain religions, or that some religious people object to, can be enacted without their approval.

IF this were the case, we would have to throw out the civil rights legislation of the 1960's in the U.S. These were 'new laws' and they were certainly strongly objected to by many Christians, and some even claimed they had religious grounds for doing so.

We would have to throw out the IRS and the income tax because at the time it was enacted, it was a 'new law' that impacted churches. We would also probably have to throw out the tax exemption for religious contributions, and the law the exempts churches from property tax.

WE would have to throw out or exempt religious institutions from building codes. These were at one time new, and directly impact the physical facilities of churches.

We would have to throw out gender discrimination laws, and probably even the right of women to vote. New laws at one time and objected to by many religious people. Following the logic put forward by 1John, they must be anti-CHristian laws.



What is really happening, of course, is that some Christians want to be able to dictate which laws they should have to follow and which laws they don't want to follow. They play the 'religious discrimination card' in an attempt to portray themselves as the victims. In addition, some wish also to dictate which laws everybody else has to follow, and that these laws should reflect their particular religious views. Clearly, this is not a concept that the founding fathers would have endorsed, whatever their own personal religious views were.