LOL, we can discriminate against and you can’t stop us, because, like, that would be discriminatory!!!
I’m sure that it will be illegal for males before too long. As it well should be. If you say it currently is still legal, I will assume you are correct.
Really??? The Hobby Lobby case does not involve a church but it does involve an idea from church, a religious ideal.
Because religion comes from a time when people didn’t know about germs, didn’t wash their hands, when most people thought the earth was flat, from a time of grave ignorance. Any idea associated to such a period should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism. In 100 years the ideas you are defending are going to look just as ludicrous as the idea from 100 years ago, that a woman could not vote, look ludicrous to us.
Why are you fighting progress?
Discrimination is only against the law in a limited set of circumstances in which the government has a compelling interest to prevent it.
For example, our personal lives are sacrosanct, wouldn’t you agree? The government may not tell us we can’t discriminate in our personal lives. The same goes for religious practice.
Given the central importance of circumcision to Judaism, that would essentially outlaw Judaism. Circumcision of females is just something some Muslims do, not based on religion, but based on traditions in some tribes. Circumcision of males is the basic covenant between God and his chosen people.
In your private life, sure, discriminate all you want.
LOL, Good, bring it on!!!
Yeah, I completely don’t care, either way it’s wrong.
God told you this?
It doesn’t matter. People believe it. A lot of people. Plus there’s no compelling government interest so it’s out of their hands.
And in 100 years almost everyone will believe it was a barbaric ritual and they are not going to care that “people believed it” they are just going to condemn it. I would say that the government does have a compelling interest in preventing children from undergoing unnecessary operations. The fact that you do not view it as a compelling interest seems very suspect.
If it’s safe, which it is, and doesn’t seriously impact their lives, then there’s no compelling interest. It’s about as significant as piercing childrens’ ears, which never has a religious purpose but which the government will probably never try to stop.
Safe? Maybe. Painful? Probably. Unnecessary? Definitely. And I would be against piercing ears for religious purposes as well.
How about for cosmetic purposes, which is why it’s done 99.9% of the time. Used to be standard but now parents realize that they have no idea what parts their daughters are going to pierce so might as well just let them do it when they are teens.
Anyway, the point is that the government can’t mess with people practicing their faith unless they have a really good reason. Not just a “wouldn’t it be nice if?” reason, but a “we’re preventing an outrage upon human life and dignity” reason.
You know, it’s really just not worth expending the effort. I am not interested in talking with you about tangential conversations so that you can defend the genital mutilation of a small child. I find your thought process disturbing and wish to entertain it no longer. If you wish to discuss some other aspect of the separation of church and state, feel free to do so.
Again, what determines law, the Constitution or your personal opinions?
[Quote=ITR Champion]
The Constitution protects religious freedom. It does not say that religious freedom doesn’t apply to religious practices that affect other people.
[/quote]
[Quote=Robert163]
Well, apparently, in 1947 the SCOTUS decided to interpret the constitution differently than you do.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, what?
You seem to think that simply repeating “separation of church and state, separation of church and state, separation of church and state”, over and over and over, constitutes some sort of argument. Why don’t you try using logic instead?
I said, “The Constitution protects religious freedom. It does not say that religious freedom doesn’t apply to religious practices that affect other people.” You said that the SCOTUS had interpreted the Constitution differently than I do. The fact that one ruling contained the words “wall of separation between church and state” obviously does not indicate that the Supreme Court disagreed with anything I said. What’s your basis for saying that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution differently than I do?
Then we can shift back to same sex marriage. I was just using circumcision as a way to explain the concept of strict scrutiny.
As it applies to same sex marriage, if all you were trying to say is that “It’s against my religion” can’t stop a law from passing, then you’re right. People’s objections to same sex marriage on religious grounds are irrelevant. Just like objections to usury or restrictions on business operating hours on Sunday.
A “separation of church and state” is not practically possible - not if that expression is interpreted in the sense that the state must refrain entirely from any interference in religious matters. There are many instances where the exercise of one person’s religious beliefs will touch upon constitutional rights of others. Whenever that happens it falls upon the state to weigh one good against the other. The state cannot stay out of it.
The subject of male circumcision is a good example for that. The ceremony of circumcision plays a very central part in Judaism. If it were outlawed, the right of Jews to religious freedom would be severely impeded. On the other hand circumcision represents a painful, medically unnecessary operation on an infant that cannot give informed consent. The state has the duty to weigh the right of the Jews to freely exercise their religion against the right of the child to be protected from bodily harm. Given the central significance of circumcision within the Jewish belief system and the fact that circumcision is unlikely to do lasting damage to the child, most western countries allow it. But this is a decision the state must make. The “separation of church and state” does not change that.
Yeah, so what? Has any court ever ruled based on "separation of state and idea from a church?
How do you know what’s going to happen 100 years in the future? Have you time-traveled to 2115 A.D?
So, religious people can discriminate, that is their freedom, but to try and stop them would be discrimination, and, can’t be allowed. Surely you see what a bizarre set of “logic” that is. It’s only rhetoric and double talk that even allows you to be part of the conversation.
True, but religious freedom requires the state to prove to the courts that they have a compelling interest. Unnecessary procedures have been performed on kids without their consent since our country’s founding. As long as the risks are low and the consequences not particularly significant, there’s just no compelling interest.
The state probably could stop childhood ear piercing, as it’s non-religious and thus enjoys no constitutional protection. And frankly, they should stop it first because of that. Going after religious practice while leaving similar cosmetic practices legal sounds like discrimination against religion. “We don’t like it because it’s religious”, basically. Which is a violation in spirit of the very wall Robert supports.
Then what exactly are you debating?
Now you are just splitting hairs. Religion and church are for all practical purposes, the same.
100 years ago, in the past, people had only been flying planes for less than 20 years. Go ahead, keep advancing outdated, unsubstantiated, scientifically illiterate positions. The more you do, the less work I have to do.
It depends on the circumstances of the discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was okay for a church to fire a teacher for getting pregnant. In purely religious affairs, the right to discriminate is near absolute.
Where it gets murkier is religious people involved in secular business transactions.
Yeesh.
Look, it is clear that you are hostile to religion, and that’s fine. It is equally clear clear what you want the meaning of the phrase “a wall of separation between Church and State” to be. But then we have the facts, and they don’t agree with you. There is a good article on it here.
Well, they can get away with it for now.
try picking an unbiased website