I don’t know if this issue arises in the US, but in Canada, where there are union shops (i.e. once the Board certifies the union as the bargains agent, new hires have to join the union), there have been individuals who object to joining a union on religious grounds. Those objectors have normally been accommodated by requiring them to pay the equivalent of union dues to a charity agreed upon by the individual and the union.
Except, the Constitution protects free exercise of religion from government regulation. It doesn’t protect “I don’t feel like it.”
No, it does not. A worshipper of Huitzilopochtli, for example, would find their attempts to sacrifice people to the sun god would be quickly suppressed. The government is not allowed to exert control over a religion because it is a religion, but no such limitation applies to regulation where the action’s place in a religion is incidental.
If it is your honest belief that the sacrament of Communion is best honestly described as “slugging back a bit of wine,” then as someone who doesn’t even care for Catholicism I daresay you aren’t qualified to discuss the subject.
The Old Order Amish objected on religious grounds to payment of Old Age Survivor’s and Disability Insurance (OASDI), more commonly known as Social Security.
The IRS, in its efforts to collect OASDI payments, noted Social Security is a tax and nothing more. Indeed that is how it was passed in Congress.
The Old Order Amish argued Social Security is an insurance scheme and is wordly in nature making it something to avoid. Moreover the Old Order Amish have a very strong history of caring for their own elderly and disabled and did not wish to accept any benefits from Social Security.
To enforce payment in a noted case, on April 18, 1961 the IRS entered the farm of Valentine Byler during spring planting and seized three horses of his horses. The horses were sold at auction to satisfy the tax owed.
The Old Order Amish considered raising a legal case but eventually the matter was settled in their favor when an exemption to Social Security payments was written into the newly passed Medicare law in 1965. Mr Byler heard the news laying in his hospital bed. He had recently broken his neck in a farming accident. His medical bill was paid without relying upon commercial insurance.
The Old Order Amish feature in another instance of secular law infringing upon religious practice. In the Supreme Court case of Wisconsin v. Yoder the Old Order Amish won exemption from compulsory school attendance laws.
It was the practice amongst the Old Order Amish to provide for structured classroom education to the 8th grade level only. Further schooling was in the form of apprenticeship or vocational training as a part of their continuing religious education.
The State of Wisconsin brought a case against three Amish families who withdrew their children from the public schools after 8th grade. The state won its initial case.
There was some concern that the Amish would not defended themselves in court with further appeals, choosing to turn the other cheek. As such a Lutheran minister formed The National Committee For Amish Religious Freedom which appealed successfully to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The State of Wisconsin appealed to the US Supreme Court where they lost, thus establishing the right of the Old Order Amish to be exempt from school compulsory attendance laws.
Better that then believing they are partaking of the body and blood of Jesus. That’s disgusting!
Exactly. Too many people forget there are two constitutional rights regarding religion: the government can’t promote a religion and the government can’t prohibit a religion.
In that case, what’s to keep us from passing a law that bans some practice that is fundamental to a particular religion, or even bans that religion altogether? How do you guarantee any religious freedom? How do you distinguish between the religious issues that the state does have the authority to limit or regulate, and those that it does not?
(And I know some of you would be perfectly happy to do away with religious freedom altogether, but it’s one of the fundamental values this country was founded on and is still vitally important to many of its citizens. And even if you’re not a fan of religion, you should be wary of giving all power to the state.)
There’s a huge difference between banning a religion vs requiring its adherents to follow the same laws as everyone else. Giving a group special privileges because they happen to believe in a certain skydaddy, while denying those privileges to nonbelievers or believers in different skydaddies, is the antithesis of freedom. Religious exemptions are nothing more than special pleading.
I think that transubstantiation is a beautiful concept although I am not a Catholic. When I partake of the Eucharist, the bread and the wine are symbols of the body and blood. That is enough for me.
But the partaking of the actual body and blood of a sacred being is no more repulsive to me than having a very bloody steak. To the contrary.
I guess it’s a good thing that the government has no control over religious belief itself.
Likewise, it’s a good thing that we no longer have Pentecostal televangilist ministers flashing diamonds on their fingers in an inner-city school while preaching a sermon that is required viewing for all students and faculty. As a teacher, I had to sit through that in the late Sixties and early Seventies.
One of our faculty members brought up the the subject of those sermons and Bible readings and prayers at a faculty meeting. The stubborn, ignorant administrator slammed his fist down and said that the activities would continue until he had a court order to stop.
Poor principal. The faculty member’s husband was an ACLU attorney.
Silent prayer, of course, has never been banned in public schools.
You’d think so; but when I try to nail down exactly what or where that difference is, I find it elusive.
It is interesting that you think these are big hurdles for the government to reconcile between state and religion. The answer that comes to mind is, “what business does the government have here in the first place?”
How about “If you promise to practice your religion in a way that doesn’t violate established law, we won’t establish law that targets your religion.”?
So no problem with a law against wearing a yarmulke as long as it applied to both Jews and non-Jews.
In what way does that law not target a specific religion?
What about a law that says only Jews can wear them?
Both ridiculous and discriminatory, wouldn’t you say?
When the Hmong came here (and there is a large population of them here in Minnesota), they brought with them their culture and traditions. One of those was the custom of marrying 12-14 year old girls, with or without their consent, to men in their mid 30’s or older. Of course, this ran afoul of US ‘age of consent’ laws and all sorts of other things. The Hmong, of course, defended this as Tradition and Custom and some of their leaders asked for some kind of exemption to the laws.
We didn’t give it to them. We required them to adapt their culture to our laws.
Claiming “God” allows you to do what society sees as wrong is still wrong. God isn’t a free pass to being a bigot or hatemonger. And really, if your brand of Christianity says it is, then it isn’t based on the Prime Example of your religion: Jesus himself.
But the question should the government treat it as different than having a shot of wine and a cracker. I say that by doing so the government provides their imprinteur on the religion that they are making the exemption for. This is even worse when they make an exception for one religion but not another (e.g. wine during prohibition is ok for Catholics but marijuana for Rastafarians is not ok.) This gets into government deciding what is a valid religion and what is not, a position I would like to see the government move further away from and not closer to.
Laws should have only secular justifications. I law banning yarmulkes has no secular justification.
Actually, when the US Congress passed a law that forced the military to allow Jewish servicemen to wear yarmulkas and Muslim servicemen after an Air Force officer was courtmartialed for wearing a yarmulka, I thought that was a great thing.
This hasn’t resulted in a bunch of butthurt Marines whining about Muslim and Jewish Marines being allowed wear “cover” inside while they weren’t.
In all seriousness can any of the people complaining about religious people being allowed to do something that non-religious aren’t produce an example of the US, Canadian, or British government doing something like this.
I ask because to me if it doesn’t cause any harm, where’s the harm.
I can certainly understand telling certain religious groups “no, you’re not allowed to have your 13-year-old daughter marry a 50-year-old”, but where’s the harm in telling the St. Paul education department “No, you can’t make male Lakota teachers have short cuts”?