I don’t blame people for not understanding how arbitration works (and really, who would want to, other than us lawyers? ), but this just gets my goat in the “willful ignorance” category.
The point here is that anyone can set up an “arbitration” system based on whatever they want to. All “arbitration” means is that two people agree to settle their dispute by agreement, through an agreed system outside the courts, rather than a lawsuit. This does not exempt them from the law of the land, any more than any other sort of contract would - you can’t contract to do something illegal.
It makes sense to impose limits on contracting in certain areas, and family law is one of them - because otherwise, people in vulnerable positions could get abused.
But this whole “Sharia Law! OMG!” reaction is just fear-mongering anti-Muslim nonsense - all it means is Muslims setting up their own arbitration system. You can set up an arbitration system in Klingon if you want to. There are tons of ADR systems, commercial, community based, what have you, they have been operating for decades without anyone caring in the slightest, and the only time they got any press is when Muslims attempted to establish one. :eek:
My apologies, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
It may simply be the case that no one’s filed suit for such a thing on non-religious grounds. There’d be no remedy under the RFRA in that instance, but other laws could protect non-religious convictions. For example, Tennessee’s Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, and creed. A few other states also include the “creed” category. Well, what does that mean, exactly? We aren’t quite sure, it turns out:
There is little or no legal precedent in Tennessee for claims brought on the basis of creed under the THRA’s employment-discrimination provisions. Despite the fact that most chapters in statutes provide sections with definitions of focal terms to make it easier to interpret and enforce the laws uniformly, the THRA, unfortunately, does not define “creed.” When a court is presented with enforcing a statute that has an undefined critical term, the court may look at how similar statutes in other states define the term, but, even so, there is little guidance in other states for a Tennessee court to look to.
Turns out that “creed” has sometimes been interpreted as synonymous with “religion”, and sometimes not. So, here we have a way that non-religious ideologies can be protected, if the courts so rule (in the linked case, a person was alleging discrimination due to their being vegan).
Fine, my counter-analogy wasn’t great either. I understand what you’re saying, and as noted above, progress in this area is both possible and welcome.
Except it often is a zero-sum game. Your position is that where there is a compelling reason for society to reject a religion-based demand, it will do so. But that’s far from a given. As in some of the examples previously discussed, sometimes it will happen, sometimes it won’t. It’s often a matter of happenstance, luck, or the particular political climate of the moment whether the law can or will assert itself against a religious demand, and not necessarily determined solely by how outrageous it is. Thus religions have, at various times, continued to meddle with secular freedoms by, for instance, promoting blanket opposition to abortion, homophobia, even opposition to birth control and life-saving medicine while in some cases promoting intolerance and violence.
No, the sole question is whether asserting religious freedoms should be able to override civil law.
Not sure what your point is. That the possibility of having a freedom raises a concern that sometimes the courts will get it wrong - so better not to have it at all?
Not very compelling.
This is just a way to reframe the question. By definition, any constitutional freedom is “able to override civil law”, since it has the power to trump a law that is passed that has the effect of stripping away the freedom!
To take a simple example, say there is something in the consitution that offers freedom of the press. A government passes a civil law that states that anyone attempting to publish any news, other than the government, is to be imprisioned. The journalists go to court and argue that freedom of the press is infringed. Bingo, the courts rule that the freedom “overrides the civil law”.
Of course, it is perfectly possible to argue that we should not have a freedom of the press - because look, courts sometimes fail to uphold laws against child porn, or allow total libel to be published with impunity, and what about Internet bullying and harrassment? Won’t someone please think of the children!
No one can say in truth that God said or did anything, it is just a personal belief.
Our forefathers had the freedom of religion put in because they intended to protect the Minority from the majority. They lived in time where there was no freedom to believe in their own religion so the protection was for all beliefs or non.
It should be compelling that if the courts get it wrong, then some very anti-social counterproductive and even dangerous policies might prevail, like those examples I keep mentioning.
One hopes that a nation’s constitution is based on something more rational than religious dogma. We don’t live in a theocracy. Although sometimes it seems uncomfortably close.
There is nothing either rational or irrational about a rights-based model. Allowing religious freedom as a right isn’t endorsing the contents of any religion, any more than allowing freedom of the press means the constitution agrees with the contents of any newspapers.
And yet these protections are extended only to, in effect, large minority self-identity groups, which seems to miss the point of the whole problem. What we effectively have is a situation where a group of 100 people are able to oppress a group of 20 - a bad thing, to be sure - and so protections are enacted. But if those protections require the minority group to be large enough to have widespread acknowledgement of their particular in-group symbology, then we’re protecting that group of 20 but not the group of 5, or 2, or the individual. Which seems entirely at odds with the basis for the idea; that a majority can, if allowed, run roughshod over smaller groups.
Perhaps it’s because I personally am not religious, but looking at the narrow question of whether religious people should have freedoms that people like me do not seems like a too narrow question. If they’re worth having, which I would agree with, then they’re worth having across the board.
Put another way; we’re not talking about religious freedoms for Christians alone, or Abrahamic religions alone, or theistic religions alone. We’ve defined the scope as “religion” in general; why not “philosophy”?
That does seem better than nothing, though (Bricker Mode) I’m leery at the idea of whether or not people like me would have the same kinds of rights as others being left up to the interpretation of individual judges.
Agreed, it’s not ideal. On the plus side, though, one upshot of being irreligious is that there’s not much that can be suppressed; we’re far past the days of mandatory prayers and Bible reading and whatnot, and even farther from mandatory Christianity and church attendance. So, while that still leaves a few potential issues, it’s not too bad.
I can’t offhand think of any laws beyond the draft that burden various secular ideologies, for instance (maybe income tax, for certain libertarians? Or all laws, for anarchists?). There’s the fact that most states’, and the federal, Civil Rights Acts don’t protect secular creeds from discrimination, though I don’t know how common occurrences of such discrimination are, either.
I’d consider the basic idea to be a truism. Your right to do something is independent of whether you do it because you feel like it, because somebody else talked you into it, or because your Invisible Sky Friend told you to do it.
Mmm. I can see ways to interpret that that could go either way. But it’s certainly something. Good for Canada!
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Agreed, it’s not ideal. On the plus side, though, one upshot of being irreligious is that there’s not much that can be suppressed; we’re far past the days of mandatory prayers and Bible reading and whatnot, and even farther from mandatory Christianity and church attendance. So, while that still leaves a few potential issues, it’s not too bad.
[/QUOTE]
At the national level, sure. More locally… eh, I don’t know that I’d go that far. But certainly there doesn’t seem to be any kind of majority acceptance that those things are ok. Still, the reverse is also true; I can’t see banning prayers and Bible readings outright, or the outlaw of Christianity and churches happening any time soon, either, but I don’t think that would be a good reason to get rid of those protections. If we’re going to delineate or recognise rights, then common oppression is a very good reason to do so - but absent that oppression it’s still a good idea. There’s the principle of the thing, but on top of that - who knows what tomorrow may bring?
Why do you describe the RFRA as “medieval”? The USA’s RFRA was passed in 1994, which is not generally considered part of the medieval period. If any RFRA or like piece of legislation existed in medieval times, I’m not aware of it.
Since Democrats in Congress unanimously support medieval legislation, should I vote against them?
That’s true. American woman have a greater right to an abortion than Swedish women. In Sweden, abortion by choice is illegal after the 18th week of pregnancy, except when the woman’s life is in danger. In the USA, Democrats start getting the vapors if any state suggests a similar restriction at week 20. As you said, Sweden has no serious debate about expanding abortion rights to match the USA.
So the more secular Sweden has less freedom for abortion than the more religious USA.
I could see banning the adhan or Koran readings, though, at least in some areas, if the existing protections were to be removed. Christianity would do just fine, given its firm majority.
Perhaps that’s why conscientious-objector status is as old as it is, as the draft represents such a burden on various ideologies; and notably, since 1971, no religious affiliation or belief is required.
They made an exception to the law on the basis of a religious belief. Do they care less for Sikh’s safety than anyone else’s? Is a Sikh’s reason for not wearing a helmet any different than another person’s desire for their hair to flow free in the wind? Both have equivalent foundations for their arguments as to why they wish to do so.
Not sure why this is relevant to a point being debated about the conflict between constitutional religious rights and civil law.
Civil laws = whatever the legislature determines, as long as they pass constitutional muster.
The issue, of course, is that the legislature will make laws in our democratic society based, roughly, on what will get them votes. There are lots of Sikhs in BC, and evidently, some politicians in BC thought it worthwhile to collect those votes and pass an exemption. Which in turn means that there is and can be no “conflict” between the law and the constitutional religious right in BC.
None of which had to do with my point - which was that when the law actually was in conflict with “religious rights” of Sikhs to wear a turban rather than a motorcycle helmet - as was the case in Ontario, where there is no such exemption - the law clearly prevailed - because the government was able to demonstrate a gen-u-ine public purpose for infringing the right: namely, safety.
Which, ignorantly, led to an accusation of regionalism on my part …
The reason why so many disputes are arising now is that the government is trying to rule so much of our lives and force us to do so many things. From the time of James Madison & co. Until fairly recently, the government did a lot less. When I was born, the government didn’t try to force anyone to buy health insurance that covered birth control. Those who wanted birth control coverage could buy it, and those who didn’t want such coverage could choose to not buy it. Only when the government chose to force every large employer to buy health insurance and require that said insurance must cover all forms of birth control did the First Amendment violations start. So if the government had simply continued allowing us the same freedoms that it allowed us until very recently, everyone in this thread would be happy. I’d be happy, because all Americans would still have their Constitutional rights. You’d be happy, because no one would have a unique right solely because of religion. Likewise most other controversies of this sort would vanish if the government chose not to play nanny all the time.
), but this just gets my goat in the “willful ignorance” category.