With strict scrutiny. If the law can survive strict scrutiny it is upheld in the face of all the religious objections in the world.
We all know what religion can do at its worst. What about religion at its best? When 19th-century Quakers fought to abolish slavery, because their faith taught them we’re all equal before the Inner Light, should they have been told that the First Amendment forbids their mixing their religious agenda with the country’s laws?
Since they were trying to “make laws” and “influence government” based on Robert’s logic, yes.
They were wrong to invoke God and rather than using “religious arguments” should have used “reason”.
Most people disagree.
The exact same people and arguments that were used to oppose slavery on religious grounds also introduced disastrous policies such as Prohibition, the annexation of foreign territories to convert the heathens, and anti-Irish discrimination on the exact same religious grounds. Any moral person has to say it was worth it to get rid of slavery, but let’s not pretend you don’t open the door to every abuse of religiously based governance once you let it in.
There is no denying that religion can motivate people to do the right thing and has done so more than once in the past. The problem starts when the religious try to convince others of their ways and the only reason they can give is their faith.
Well, *that *is no trouble either unless they try to *enforce *it.
Everything you mentioned was promoted by lots of other groups who were probably far more responsible for it than religious Christians.
The fact is that “non-religious” ideas are just as likely as religious ideas to lead to awful things, and conversely just as likely to lead to positive things.
Besides no one has insisted that we need religious beliefs for good things.
Hell, I’m not even sure how many people here are that religious. I’m not.
What are you talking about? Can you name ANYONE involved in the Prohibition movement in the U.S. who wasn’t a religiously active Protestant?
You mean like Eugene Debs?
Prohibition was an extremely popular movement which was staunchly supported by groups as diverse as the Suffragettes, the KKK, and of course the Socialist Party.
If it hadn’t been so popular it never would have been passed.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to pass an Amendment.
1- that comment might be relevant if you weren’t defending bigoted close minded people
2- it will often be a reaction due anger about the past but it is also, probably just as much or more, about correcting a social injustice
I wasn’t aware the first amendment was designed to promote and defend discrimination
no, actually, you couldnt say that.
Debs and the Socialist Party “steadfastly opposed the Prohibition Movement” and believed that everyone should have subsidized access to liquor in government-run bars. Why do you think you can just make stuff up?
Please don’t accuse me of lying.
Apparently you’re correct and I misremembered. I actually checked with a friend from college who I thought had told me that while watching an episode of the 90s version of the Untouchables. Unlike many members of the Wobblies and other Labour leaders who spent quite a bit of time in saloons, Debs was a temperance advocate, but not nearly as staunch as I thought.
However, your implication that prohibition was supported solely by fundamentalist Christians and was based solely on religious arguments is plainly false(and no I’m not accusing you of “making stuff up” or lying).
You’ll noticed the Prohibition Party contained huge numbers of socialists, suffragettes, pacifist and other progressives. In fact, I could be wrong, but I think every major Suffragette leader supported prohibition.
Nor is this surprising since this was “the Progressive Era” and many people who advocated for child labor laws, workers safety laws, etc. also advocated for prohibition for lots of reasons. Alcohol’s link to domestic violence, it’s being seen as exploitation of the poor, and the fact that alcoholism and all the attendant problems associated with it were vastly worse in the US back then than now. None of which of course require being a Protestant.
That’s why the 18th Amendment was passed.
Contrary to popular belief, Amendments to the US Constitution are really difficult to pass. In my lifetime, just one has been passed and since the original Bill of Rights, just 17.
Prohibition was as much a thing of the left as the right. It was an unholy alliance of nanny staters and fundies.
Religions may in fact do this. They just can’t be tax exempt 501(c)(3) non-profits.
Separation of church and state is largely associated with the establishment clause (congress shall establish no religion) and places NO restrictions on anyone other than the government. The constitution frequently works this way.
Nowhere, EVER have the court ever said that the first amendment restricts religion In fact it would probably run counter to the first amendment.
Why not? I am pretty sure that this exact thing happened during the AIDS epidemic and I don’t remember anyone getting sued or losing their license.
This is supposed to be a nation of laws.
You don’t get to tell people what their religious beliefs require or require that their religious beliefs pass your analytical review. You get to tell them that it is legally protected or not. The RFRA protects a lot of religious objection that in my opinion ought not be protected but it protects it all the same.
And none of them have ever gotten away with it.