Works for me, but I’d make that first “if” a “when”.
This same week I saw a bit of a debate on Spanish TV about some “RCC privileges”. One of the debaters pointed out that they’re not “RCC privileges”, the same privileges apply to any Non-profit Organization which has gone through certain loops. The Red Cross and Greenpeace are two of the NPOs which have those same privileges.
I think that laws which include provisos for “objection of conscience” should not be linked to membership in specific organizations. Those in Spain don’t; some are permanent and some are temporary, I think those linked to certain jobs should always be temporary, to cover people who got the job under certain conditions and the conditions have changed on them. An example of a temporary OoC law we had was: when SSM got approved, City Councilors who were already elected could ask for OoC; those elected after the fact have to record/perform SSMs.
The first amendment (and the Virginia one) were in large part to protect smaller, weaker, religions from bigger ones. If we allow the 4H club to exist, we should also allow any churches with equal rights and responsibilities.
The problem with religious exemptions is that they give people a pass on important obligations with no real justification. Say a parent objects to vaccinating a kid. A secular parent would have to give evidence that vaccination was harmful - and would lose. If we decide it is important to vaccinate, and the facts back us up, the kid should be protected. Now say the parent is a member of a religion opposing vaccination. She says “God says so” and gets a pass. Why is that reasonable? If they can prove god exists and does says so, that is one thing, but good luck with that.
Plus this attitude makes some religions believe that they do not have to follow secular laws even in places where there is not good religious reason not to - I give you the Catholic hierarchy.
This is just another example of the special treatment which religions think they are due. Think of how schools would be under this policy. 2 + 2 = 5? Don’t mark me wrong, God said that’s the right answer.
Abolishing all religious exemptions could have interesting implications for the Amish, Hutterites and other groups that do not educate children above a certain level, usually 8th grade or so. The 1972 Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder found that Amish parents’ right to religious freedom outweighed the state’s interest in compulsory education until age 16 and in effect set up a religious exemption to protect Amish religion and culture.
But in all honesty, I have to side with William O. Douglas’ dissent (the only one). He noted that Amish parents weren’t the only people whose rights matter:
This really is fodder for a whole 'nother thread, but it’s relevant to the topic at hand. Perhaps the Amish practice of limiting formal education to grade school is so inherently abusive and coercive that the state cannot respect their religious scruples; after all, if an Amish youth decides during “rumspringa” that he/she cannot return to the order, he/she has significant educational disadvantages (though not insurmountable ones). OTOH, compulsory high school could itself be considered coercive and perhaps disadvantageous to the survival of Amish culture (if, indeed, it’s a culture worth preserving)–but at least it’s equally coercive to most/all children.
Except we do prohibit many things. Smoking peyote. Animal sacrifices in the wrong zone. Are devout Muslims who owe back taxes exempted from paying interest? It is currently a very fuzzy line. Parents can be exempt from getting their children vaccinated, but not from getting blood transfusions or appendectomies.
Considering there have been numerous court cases that have settled these various issues, I’m not sure it’s as fuzzy as you’re implying.
The standard the courts have repeatedly upheld is that there must be a “compelling interest” for government to infringe on religious liberty. Courts have ruled that states do have a compelling interest in outlawing drug use or insisting that children get medical care. (Were some enterprising Muslim to sign a contract that required interest payments and subsequently claim that his religion absolved him from paying said interest, I’m sure that courts would rule that there is a compelling state interest in ensuring that contracts are enforceable). It has ruled that states do not have a compelling interest in prohibiting other things.
That’s the test that would have to be passed for the kinds of legal changes desired by the OP: is there a “compelling interest” in forcing the Amish to sign up for Social Security, etc.
To some extend it makes sense to allow the Christian Scientist to bow out of the health care option that may be coming. If they don’t use the medical system, why do they need to buy into it?
As an incidental note, I’m okay with religious-based property-tax exemptions, on the basis that many cities have historic churches and whatnot and suddenly requiring fair-market property taxes could force parish bankruptcy and demolition, to the detriment of the cities’ architectural aesthetics.
I suppose the state wants to know that the religious community that’s supposed to care for you in your old age will still be around in 30 years. The Amish probably will be. The Church of Our Holy Mother Beyoncé, founded last week, might be a flash in the pan.
One could get into sticky situations, if one had no conscience objections at all. Imagine, for instance, a law which mandated the eating of pork. See, the state has a lot of pig farmers, and it’s good for the economy: No religious justifications at all given for the law. But that law will, in practice, have the effect of persecution of Jews and Muslims, and that may well even be the unstated intention of the legislature in passing it. What defense would you give the Jews and Muslims against such persecution?
Don’t these fall under the standard non-profit 501(c) tax laws? i.e. My nonprofit corporation could own a building and be exempt from property taxes as well.
Except that is not so. If a religion can prove it is an established religion and not just set up to avoid paying taxes or so one can do drugs, it gets an exemption.
The Amish for instance don’t pay social security tax, because they have proven that their practices provide for the elderly like social security and that practice goe back for a long time.
The Native American Church has an exemption for peyote.
As for Muslims and other not paying interst, it is called balance. No amendment guarantees absolute rights. Famously we are all taught the right to free speech does not mean you may yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
The 1st Amendment is a balance of preventing establishment of a religion while making sure no relgion is prevented from practicing its beliefs. As everything it means within reason.
Aren’t all laws passed because the people doing the passing think that there is a compelling interest to force all citizens to behave in that certain way?
I just don’t see a reason to exempt people from laws due to religious reasons. If we need the law, it should apply to everyone.
However, I’ve not examined every last unintended consequence so I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.
Can’t be anything else, can it, but reasoning. Finding that elusive reasonable solution. But that dependence on reason is a gesture of faith towards our fellow citizens, we expect that they can be reasoned with, we depend on that all the way from jury trials to elections. Doesn’t always work, Lord knows, but efficiency is not the point, justice is the point.
I think that includes, or ought to include, a generous willingness to tolerate the odd beliefs of the other, that they might return the same willingness. If that means taking comfort in an invisible sky pixie, so be it. if that means fuming and fussing that anyone who does so believe is an idiot and a caveperson, well, all right then.
Would it be more rational and more just if religious institutions were not exempt, and no excuses were permitted for religious belief. Yes, actually, it would. But I am not willing to tear my country to shreds in order to achieve some arcane point of democratic purity. I’m a radical, not a fanatic.
Take the Amish and their aversion to reflective tape on their buggies. Let’s stipulate one issue as settled, that such a rejection is a public health hazard, promotes accidents, and we require that the Amish put reflective tape on their buggies. I would support that. I would also, however, be willing to consider alternatives, if the Amish can make their vehicles safe for nighttime buggying using kerosene, we should be willing to be flexible. Indeed, if one of our sciency people can come up with a way to accomplish that same end using skillfully engineered kerosene lamps, I would not only approve, but applaud. For me, tolerance is more a positive willingness to meet the other than a simple willingness to shrug them off.
No, there doesn’t need to be. Most laws merely require a “rational basis” test: i.e., the state must have a reason for passing the law.
“Compelling interest” is a higher standard.
There is no compelling interest in the United States having a flag; it’s just something we, through our elected officials have decided is something we want, and so have decided to make laws specifying the shape, size and color of the flag. Such laws have a rational basis, and it’s all they need.
Laws dictating that the flag not be defaced, on the other hand, impinge upon the freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right; such a law would need to show a compelling interest in the government disallowing such speech.
There is a compelling interest for having everyone signed up for SS. You could make a religious neutral exception for any group with an on going, long term care system in place.
That is by statute, not because the SC ruled that way. From the relevant U.S. Code:
[
As for Muslims and other not paying interst, it is called balance. No amendment guarantees absolute rights. Famously we are all taught the right to free speech does not mean you may yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
The 1st Amendment is a balance of preventing establishment of a religion while making sure no relgion is prevented from practicing its beliefs. As everything it means within reason.
[/QUOTE]
Someone who freely enters in to a contract is not being compelled by the government to enter that contract. But if you fail to pay income taxes, you will be assigned fees and pay interest on the past due amount. That is the government forcing you to pay interest.
No, in many or most states, a parent can opt out of vaccination based on philosophical grounds instead of religious ones, just like it used to be with the draft and conscientious objectors. Therefore, in those states religion is not getting any special exemption that is not equally available to secular people.
Can’t say I could have posted a better response. Thanks!
Regarding education and the Amish, it comes down to a questions of what constitutes education. They consider “learning how to work the farm” to be education. Can’t say I could argue with that.
