There were challenges to 42 USC 666 to require a SS# to obtain a driver license. Such arguments were that it was the “mark of the beast” and to force a person to obtain a SS#, ergo SIN, would damn thier soul to HELL.
And this comes down to the issue of needless laws in the first place, which as has been said, if they can be exempted because of a religious reason, then they can be exempted for any reason, so they may as well not exist.
If a traditional practice can be accomplished without causing harm to anyone or public safety, then there is no reason to make a law against it in the first place. I would agree that laws that specifically target the safe practice of a cultural belief should not be created or enforced.
Unless it was a police officer, then he can’t issue a citation without a hat on!!! Ha!
(Not really, but challenged).
Wait …lets go back to the beginning…
I am Man, born of the Creator.In the middle of the forest. All i know is my being…and I adhere to the natural law. As in experience I feel a connection to the creator and give thanks for the water, the fruit, the life I have. I am truly free in thought and actions. Grew to adulthood and journeyed toward a light . That light was society. being in society, their law told me not to eat the fruit that the creator so freely gave me. nor the fish and all sorts of restrictions. I am a freeman right who can tell me otherwise I knew the laws of my creator first and it seemed natural. Now the authorities have a whole new set of rules to follow. Unnatural requests and truly against my natural laws I am sovreign with my creator . Correct? And yes, you should know where i am going with this
Libertarian fan fiction based on a Jean Auel book?
The Forrest was in the woods of a state park and i am as natural born to this area as the bird or animals. I am free to travel that’s how i saw the light of civilization, While I was walking through civilization I was asked for ID. And I gave my word as being Human Being that’s all i know of. I have no name, the birds call me auk thats all they say when I come near.
I must say that as I continued to follow this thread, I was reminded more and more of Emerson’s famous observation “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
It seems as though folks have pressed the “no exceptions” policy as a way to counter every possible objection. Ultimately, IMO, these things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis and with an appreciation for practicality, and ISTM the legal system has been designed to do just that (granted, imperfectly at times).
Take the Amish sect exemption to SS as an example. Pressing the “no exceptions” policy seems to lead to two extremely unpalatable solutions: (1) picking a protracted and unpleasant fight with a small but sympathetic minority who’s participation in SS wouldn’t make a whit of difference, or (2) destroying SS as a viable program. While many conservatives might love (2), I just don’t think adherence to a foolish consistency is worth forcing what would be a Sophie’s choice for many Americans. Take the compromise and deal with it.
And before the usual suspects pipe in with their “well what about X group…” scenarios, I’ll reiterate that these would need to be determined individually on a case-by-case basis. If enough exceptions pile up, I’ll concede the original law would need to be revisited. However I’m not convinced that “enough” = “one”.
Note that I specified a special ed student… if a principal is approached by a special ed teacher who says “John is really doing much better this year, learning a lot and having a great experience actually interacting with the other students, might even be possible to mainstream him in a few years… but he is still completely attached to his hat. If we put down our foot about that it will set him down months or more”, should the principal’s only choice be to either (a) make an exception for John, meaning that he then also has to make an exception for every student in the school, or (b) NOT make an assumption and potentially cripple John’s education and socialization?
My point being that your position (I think you’re the one espousing this position, might be responding to the wrong person here) a position of “well, either the law SHOULD be the law, in which case there should be no exceptions, or we allow at least one exception, in which case it should NOT be the law” is way over-absolutist. The vast vast majority of laws have one or more exceptions, and that’s reasonable and beneficial, because that’s how the real world works.
I reject your assertion that this consistency is ‘foolish’. In this case, consistency is essential, even Constitutionally mandated. The government cannot and should not be in the business of deciding which religions are ‘legitimate’ for legal purposes. That’s basically the point of the Establishment Clause as interpreted by the courts. To decide religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis is unavoidably going to mean doing exactly that - it means deciding that the Amish have a reasonable prohibition against Social Security, but that the members the First Church Of Hating Big Government (membership: 2) does not.
Laws with exceptions you gotta be kiddin me . real world is not the legalese I’m under the mindset of the human being not the “person” its either a law or not but really if you read the text its statute under its “color of law” or “force of law”
Please tell me you aren’t one of those “the law doesn’t apply to me because of the way it is worded” freeloaders.
Uhh… what?
I agree that the system seems in some ways flawed or dangerous. But in the real world, it’s been like this for decades if not centuries, and you don’t very often (if at all) hear about cases where some small number of people claim to be members of some unusual church, request an exemption for some law that exemptions are rarely granted for, and then either they’re trying to defraud the government with a fake religion, or their religious freedoms are being trampled on, and it’s not clear which is the case.
Which isn’t to say that it’s impossible that either of those could ever happen, but the American public seems basically happy with the situation as it is, that religion is granted some level of special consideration when it comes to laws, with issues decided on a case by case basis. Considering what portion of the US population is religious, and what religion they are, I think we should appreciate the system we have, because it’s a lot better than the system that it all too easily COULD be, namely one in which the only religions that count as religions are Christianity and maybe Judaism, and we’re not too sure about Judaism.
This poster just started a thread which seems to indicate that he does.
Yeah-I just saw it. What a waste.
Yes, it is going to mean having courts decide which religions are ‘legitimate’ for legal purposes related to the (limited question) at hand. That’s what the courts are for in a practical sense, and as MaxTheVool notes, this is the way it’s been for decades if not centuries, and it hasn’t produced any problems like the one you describe.
However, I admit I am personally biased against strict, absolute rules because I’ve found that real life doesn’t usually follow them. And they often lead to foolish legal ideas like the claim that a civilian courtroom displaying a gold-fringed flag is illegitimate because that flag can only be used in military courts. The law does allow for compromise, and often IMO encourages it.
They’re all fake. There is a legitimate argument for allowing a group like the Amish to handle their own aged care - that they are an organisation that has demonstrated they are stable enough to be trusted to do so - but that has nothing to do with whatever ridiculous corpse god they believe in. A hippy commune that proves itself capable of the same thing should be given the same exception.
By that logic, the ultra-rich shouldn’t have to pay, since they can handle all their own medical expenses in cash. :rolleyes:
My personal opinion is that one not insignificant reason folk are so defensive of their religions is that religion is one of the last areas in which discrimination is permitted.
But, regardless of what you or I might think, the position of the government is certainly not “they are all fake”, it’s “they are all equal”, where “they” is religions. That does leave the problem of what is and is not a religion, but at no point should the official US policy towards Yarmulkes have any component of “well, your Hebrew God doesn’t actually exist, therefore…” in it.