So say you. The Amish would assuredly disagree. The Supremes would decide.
Yes, you could.
And if I could join some sort of non-religious retirement co-op, for people who are willing to renounce SS benefits, I would. Millions of other people would, too, including the 75% of young people who expect that they will never collect on SS.
Thus, I repeat: if you don’t allow the religious exemptions, then either you force people to act against deeply-held convictions, or you make compulsory social-welfare plans like SS and the PPACA unworkable.
If you want a special exemption because of God, or want me to do something or not do something because God said so, then I think you demonstrating that this thing exists is reasonable. If you want to waste your money and your Sundays, knock yourself out. Then I don’t care.
All Muslim governments punish people for failing to pay their taxes and I’ve never heard of any Marja arguing that fining people for back taxes constituted usery.
Islam is far too practical a religion for such idiocy(though it’s obviously capable of other forms of idiocy).
There are better examples, such as how Muslim soldiers are allowed to wear Kufi caps just as Jewish soldiers are allowed to wear Kippas.
Bearing in mind the OP’s distaste for the Selective Service…
In the 19th Century, colonial India conscripted its colonists into the British army and required them to use a combination of pork and beef fat to lubricate their rifles. No single move on the UK’s part contributed more to Hindu and Muslim mutiny than this. If the British officers had been open to religious exemptions, they might still hold India (and Pakistan, Ceylon et al.) today.
Okay, that might not be a “good thing” in everybody’s mind, but it’s one example of “no religious exemptions” cutting the throats of the parties who mandated it. Religious exemptions are a concession to political reality.
A very pertinent example, given that was a hypothetical given in a court case where Jewish conscientious objectors to the first world war were imprisoned.
Actually, the Amish are permitted to opt out of Social Security, not on a simple “we don’t believe in it” assertion, but based on the fact that they had demonstrated that their community would, in fact, care for the elderly and sick among them without the intervention of the Federal government. No other group has or had both the intention and the demonstrated history of that phenomenon. Similarly with the Amish having a shorter period of mandatory education: they demonstrated that their community would always be able to provide an environment where the more limited education would suffice for their survival.
The religious aspect is clearly present, but there was more to the laws than simply a bending to a “God said it” belief system.
What does “established religion” mean in this context? Are you saying that no NRM (New Religious Movement) is legitimate, and that the religions we have on the planet now are the only legitimate ones we can ever have?
And why should I not be able to incorporate a church so my members can do drugs? It doesn’t seem any more bizarre to me to claim that eating mushrooms brings me into the presence of divinity than it does to say that eating crackers and wine do. And I mean that literally - I’m not trying to bash Catholics. It’s a little weird, yes, but who am I to say it’s not a profoundly moving and religious experience for them? Likewise, I’m sure that people have profoundly moving and religious experiences after eating psychoactive mushrooms. Why is one okay, and the other obviously ridiculous?
And for that matter - why established? Why is my deeply held belief unimportant, simply because I don’t have an old stone building with stained glass windows in it and hundreds of people who share my deeply held belief around me?
To whom - and how - do I “prove” my internal experience?
Are you saying then that a Muslim that believes in Jihad should be allowed to maim or kill people because they belive it is part of their religious beliefs?
Yep. That’s absolutely what I’m saying. :rolleyes:
You might want to read upthread about the concept of compelling interests, and consider the possibility that maybe one of those compelling interests might be “stopping murders.”
I suspect that the number of American Muslims whose consciences would be violated by being denied the opportunity to murder infidels is fairly small; even if it wasn’t, it would obviously be one of the situations in which the state would have a pretty good reason for violating people’s consciences.
There are other religious groups which can be exempt from Social Security such as some ministers and members of religious orders (even if there is no religious objection to accepting benefits) , non-religious groups which can be exempt from Social Security such as some government employees who are covered by a pension plan , and there are Amish who are not exempt. The Amish are only exempt if they are self-employed or work for an employer who is also exempt. “We don’t believe in it” it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
I believe that is the way the law works now. And in the case of a woman’s right to contraception, or a man’s, it should be the same. If one hires a person and denies them the right to limit their familY’s size, or not want to have a child they cannot care for,feed,educate,or give the necessities of life,I believe it is wrong to force one’s beliefs on another. In the case of the RCC,no one is forcing a person to practice birth control. Since our economy is not in the best of shape,having more children than one can afford to take care of, doesn’t help the economy get better, and I use as an example Haiti and other countries where birth control is considered a sin but having children one can’t care for isn’t! So how having insurance that is part a woman/man’s salary would harm the church’s conscience doesn’t add up. Romney says the RCC does more for children’s care than any other ,but if one looks around their policies cause more povery than what they pay for!
How can the position that a law cannot have any religious exemptions be reconciled with the 1st amendment? Surely there are some laws that can be tweaked to accommodate religious beliefs.
I assert that having religious exemptions is what goes against the first amendment. It puts the government in the position of deciding what is and isn’t a valid religion for the purpose of the exemption, which to me is a violation the separation of church and state.
But isn’t the very language of a “freedom of religion” and invitation and a requirement for Government to determine whether a particular group is religious or not?
Example #1: I go to the local Baptist church on Sunday. Everyone is arrested for unlawful assembly. Courts throw out the arrests as violating a freedom of religion.
Example #2: I go to a right wing nuthouse meeting that is plotting the overthrow of the government. All are arrested for unlawful assembly. We assert that we are the “Church of the New Government” and demand to be released on grounds of religious freedom. The Court says that we are not a religion, but a criminal enterprise.
Won’t the government always have to make this determination whenever someone asserts that their group is a religion and demands protection?
Not if your laws are in any way reasonable. The important difference between the two is not that one is a religion and one is not, it’s that one is a conspiracy to commit a crime and the other is not.
But what if we made it a crime to recognize the Judeo-Christian God or to congregate for the purpose of discussing Him? Say the legislature defined the rational basis for this law as the hatred against homosexuals and the need to prevent mobs from forming to foment this hate.
Wouldn’t we then have to decide if these activities are a true “religion” protected by the first amendment? If it isn’t a religion or a peaceable assembly, then there is no right to this meeting.
We could then slide all the way down the scale of absurdity to what is a religion, but the courts will at some point have to decide that this here is a religion and that there is not.
Absolutely not. For a better example, if the government banned Scientology the question of whether or not Scientology is a real religion should be completely irrelevant. If Operation: Snow White and other unethical behaviour would be valid grounds to ban membership and financial support of a non-religious organisation, it should be equally valid grounds to ban a religious organisation.
The First Amendment does not protect your right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. So it shouldn’t protect your right to give financial aid to a criminal conspiracy that commits real crimes.
You’re right. That is a much better example. Suppose Congress banned Scientology on the grounds that it promotes unhealthy behavior or corruption of youth or some such thing, you have to then ask if it is a real religion. Because if it is, then it has special protection under the first amendment. If it’s not, then no special protection and the ban would be okay.
Your “real” crimes quote begs the question. It could be a “real” crime to be a member of Scientology if the legislature makes it so. Some crimes are so outrageous as to make it irrelevant whether a religious group is committing them or not. Some crimes would face that strict scrutiny standard to where they would be no good if they diminished an organized religion, but survive a rational basis review if the group was not a religion. Hence, the government would have to make a determination at some point as to what is a religion.
It has to do that in the same way it must define free speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the rest. You can’t enforce a right without defining what fits within that right.
It would not be okay because no organisation should be banned for unjust reasons. It should be covered by “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” without ever asking whether or not Scientology is a religion or not.
There are crimes that should be crimes (like rape, murder, fraud…) and there are crimes that should not be crimes (like the one Romeo and Juliet laws are designed to prevent). Whether or not I’d call something a “real” crime is based on the nature of the act, not on whether or not the legislature has recognised it.