I think this particular example may be a poor one for me personally because of unrelated biases. The special ed’s student’s condition may indeed count as a demonstrable need, rather than something based purely on belief, so if that is the case, despite my personal answer, an exception can be made because of actual demonstrable need.
It is only exceptions purely based on belief rather than anything that can be shown to be true that I would remove without any exceptions. I do not feel that one person’s choice of beliefs should give them special treatment or an advantage over others. Actual needs can be measured and demonstrated. Making exceptions based on belief means, to me, that the government is legitimizing the belief by giving it special consideration.
This is actually an argument that seems reasonable to me, because it’s based on actual things that can be demonstrated rather than belief. If a group of people, religious or otherwise, argue that they can demonstrate themselves to be stable enough and trustworthy enough that a ‘general good’ law doesn’t need to be applied to them, I can see a reasonable argument for giving them an exemption, based purely on their ability to not need the law’s help in the first place.
Yeah - various groups can “opt out of” Social Security. State and municipal workers, teachers, etc. Should be no insurmountable hurdle for a religious group applying to do the same.
Of course, but obviously we need to trend very heftily towards the former.
Ooh, lemme guess - the funny farm?
I can see the sense in this, but disagree on two grounds:
[ol]
[li]I feel like this opens a big fat door for groups to abuse the system, based on religion. And religion is essentially say-so - you can’t “prove” I’m not a member of religion X, you can’t prove that religion Y is baloney, and we certainly can’t have the government deciding “religion Z isn’t a real religion” (else we have situations where an obvious cult gets a free pass on account of political clou-oh wait[/li][li]…I really just don’t like the idea that people are getting special privileges because of their irrationality. [/li][/ol]
Again, I just don’t think it’s that hard to sort the wheat from the chaff here. And certainly the courts have a right to determine if X is a religion or not–else how can you say if First Amendment rights apply at all? For example, courts routinely determine if X constitutes “persons, houses, papers, and effects” for the purposes of applying Fourth Amendment rights; why can’t they do the same thing with religion?
I don’t like it either, but I’m willing to accept that what I consider “irrational” may not match what others think. I think it’s irrational to drive a car without airbags, and even though they’ve been mandatory on new vehicles since 1998, I’m willing to grant the special privilege of disabling them because someone believes it’s safer.
You misunderstand me. I did not say what you’re claiming I said. I said that if we eliminated most of the laws in question, there would be no conflicts with the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. I did not say that the laws should be eliminated based on that reason. A libertarian government, with specific limited powers, would bring enormous benefits. The absence of intrusions against religious freedom would be one among those many benefits. The notion that government should not play any role in determining what ordinary people do or don’t wear is something that the deeply religious and entirely non-religious should be able to agree on.
[li]**I feel like this opens a big fat door for groups to abuse the system, based on religion. And religion is essentially say-so - you can’t “prove” I’m not a member of religion **X, you can’t prove that religion Y is baloney, and we certainly can’t have the government deciding “religion Z isn’t a real religion” (else we have situations where an obvious cult gets a free pass on account of political clou-oh wait[/li][/QUOTE]
You’re talking as if this is a recent change in government policy. It’s been the way it’s been none for generations if not centuries and what you’re talking about doesn’t happen.
No one has ever suggested that every claim of religious belief has to be automatically accepted and it isn’t.
If what your suggesting was the case, every business would declare they were “a church” and not have to pay taxes.
Hell, that would mean everyone, not just members of the Native American Party, could declare “our religion lets us use narcotics”.
The real world doesn’t work that way.
Then I’d recommend either amending the constitution or move to Turkey.
Islam is not dependant on race. Please learn about the meaning of words before spraying them around so ignorantly.
If you honestly think that religious dress codes and religion-based cultural behaviours have nothing to do with the status of women then I suspect you must know nothing about the major Abrahamic faiths.
They are all inherently misogynist. Some enlightened sections make the right noises of course and regular schisms give a glimmer of hope but…until such time as women have equal status, opportunity and freedoms within religions then I think us outsiders should be free and vocal in pointing out the obvious. They are inherently bigoted and discriminatory institutions and I don’t think that an enlightened modern society should give them a free pass.
As for face coverings? Wherever the law demands your face be uncovered (banks, courts of law etc) then it should be uncovered. No religious exemption at all. Other than that…do what the hell you want. Is that racist?
No, you’re entirely correct, though some people seem to have trouble understanding the explanation.
This is correct in regards to Islam, not to Christianity or Judaism. I suppose one could argue it’s correct in regards to Mormonism, though not to as great an extent as Islam.
In the three Christian churches I know best (ELCA, EC, and UMC) it’s 100%. Among Jews, I think it’s close to 100% outside Orthodox circles. Among Muslims, I’d guess close to 0%.
However that’s not really relevant to your claim. You said Abrahamic religious are “inherently misogynist”. It’s not misogynist to have a position where only men are allowed; no one accuses the NBA, NHL, and NFL of being misogynist, just as no-one says that women’s colleges are misandrist. In discussing Islamic misogyny, I’d instead point to folks like Muhammad al Arifi.
Do non-profits pay property tax on land and buildings they own? Churches don’t. In addition there is a “parsonage exemption” on religious ministers’ housing costs.
IF the government would reduce in size and stay out of people’s business more, there would be less opportunity for it to violate church/state separation.
For example, in the case of marriage…
The government has no business deciding what constitutes a family and what “pairing” of adults is deserving of a certain tax status. Marriage should be a personal/family decision and the gov should have nothing to do with it. Each individual should be treated autonomously and separately in the eyes of the law and the tax man.
If the government neither recognizes or denies any form of marriage and provides no special privileges to married individuals over singles, then it has no chance of favoring one over the other or discriminating!
PEOPLE! Stop inviting the government and bureaucracy into your lives by ASKING the government for things (like marriage licenses). Realize that rights are not “gifts from the government”… The gov either respects your rights or it gets thumped in the face. I say it’s time for a thumping.