You’re against extending those protections for secular beliefs and exercise, though. So, to continue the analogy, it’s rather like you objecting to the idea that you’d be in favour of euthanising cats - but dogs? Go right ahead.
“Remove protections for one group? Ridiculous! It’s a leap and a distortion to even suggest I could think that. Ugh, but I’m completely against those same protections for this other group, that’s allowing them way too much.”
Exactly what I’m saying, too. Except I tend to think of it as “…special exemptions to laws based on someone’s spectacularly irrational superstitious strong feelings about an issue”.
And the problem with that is … ?
Yes, and I agree that speech needs to be protected with special emphasis on protecting the speech rights of those that you don’t agree with. But the protection of free speech serves a vital and demonstrable public interest and social good. The special status accorded to religious practice serves no such demonstrable social good, and indeed causes demonstrable harm when it’s in conflict with rational secular law. Especially since all religious practices not actually in conflict with law don’t need special protections in the first place. The only reason those protections exist is because a large enough number of people feel emotionally inclined to make it so. And so they have. Nothing I can do about it, but I’m still allowed to point out how unnecessary and counterproductive it is.
Free speech is the centerpiece and the bulwark of a free society. What useful thing has the granting of special religious rights ever achieved except promulgate religion itself and spawn thousands of court cases challenging the laws of a supposedly rational secular society?
BTW, I’m in no way opposed to religious practice. I’m opposed to granting it special status that places it above the law.
Eh, I’m not really convinced myself either way on that one. I’m not particularly on a side when it comes to the necessity of those protections, merely on the side that if they exist or do not, secular beliefs and exercise should justly be treated the same. As one, so the other, barring good reason not to.
My point has been that secular protections already exist – freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, etc. Freedom of religion basically adds to that, "and, oh, you also have the right to hold irrational superstitious beliefs, and engage in whatever lunatic practices those beliefs demand, possibly even in violation of law, provided that those beliefs and practices are part of a recognized religion.
What would it mean to extend that principle to secular practices? As far as I can tell, it would mean striking that last phrase. Which would make that statement of rights utterly preposterous. My point is that it’s utterly preposterous in the modern day even with that last phrase thrown in. We tolerate it, and even support it, by dint of history and culture, not because it has ever made any positive contribution to our society or system of government.
NM: misread.
The Free Exercise clause is great. We need to keep it. The RFRA is unconstitutional, and should never have been allowed to pass.
You’re making a better point every time I read you… I’m starting to waver in my disagreement…
One saving grace is that the unspoken “terms and conditions” you allude to – “provided that those beliefs and practices are part of a recognized religion” – also include another safeguard: “provided those practices do not cause excessive physical harm.” This is why parents can be imprisoned for taking their children to faith healers.
Overall, I think secular irrationality is sufficiently well protected in this country. One can be an anti-vaccinator, an Apollo-Hoax believer, etc. The ability of the populace to hold irrational, non-religious beliefs is hardly imperiled!
Well, how would you deal with pacifist objections to military service? Obviously pacifism can be either religious or non-religious in its foundations, and equally obviously objection to military service is not something protected by freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. So, would you favour a position in which conscientious pacifism enjoys no protection, and pacifists must serve, or one in which conscientious pacifism is respected, and pacifists are not compelled to serve?
And, if the latter, how would you frame (in general terms) the protection you think is warranted? Freedom of conscience? Freedom of belief?
As I said in a previous post, I can’t see how you can extend religious protection to the “practice” of atheism. Atheism is pretty much the absence of religious beliefs or practices.
Can you give an example of an atheist practice that you feel might be protected?
This. Atheism isn’t a specific belief; it’s the lack of a specific belief. And the corollary of this is that, when it comes to exercise, atheism will be characterised by the decision not to do certain things - e.g. not to go to church, not to pray, not to contribute to religious organisations, etc.
And if some state were to pass a law requiring, e.g., church attendance, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would strike that down as a law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion - since, if you’re compelled to go to church, that’s not a free exercise of religion.
I think what’s missing is any general protection for the free exercise of non-religious ethical beliefs. There’s protection for the exercise of both religious and non-religious ethical beliefs if that exercise happens to take the form of speech, assembly, or any of the other enumerated rights, but no general protection. And that’s illustrated by examples such as conscientious objection to military service - constitutionally protected if it has a religious motivation but not, so far as I can see, if it has a non-religious motivation.
You raise a good question. Probably the best answer I can give is that I don’t consider this to be fundamentally a religious matter, even though draft boards have been inclined to see it that way. An atheist can just as easily have conscientious objections to the violence of war as a religious person. If one is going to have such an exemption, I’d prefer it to be evaluated for legitimacy on a case-by-case basis, rather than being granted on the basis of membership in some religion.
That said, I’m not even sure such an exemption is really legitimate. We tend to think of the draft in terms of Vietnam and the turmoil of the 60s, but what about World War II? Maybe it’s more important to avoid stupid wars than to figure out how to accommodate everyone’s personal philosophies when a war is really necessary for the defense of the nation.
The tricky thing is that really, you could say the same thing about theism. There’s no theistic practices, either - religious practices, yes, but that’s beyond the simple catchall term. Likewise, I can’t think of much in the way of atheistic practices or exercise, but I can certainly imagine some philosophical beliefs that atheists might hold that could be protected.
[QUOTE=UDS]
I think what’s missing is any general protection for the free exercise of non-religious ethical beliefs. There’s protection for the exercise of both religious and non-religious ethical beliefs if that exercise happens to take the form of speech, assembly, or any of the other enumerated rights, but no general protection. And that’s illustrated by examples such as conscientious objection to military service - constitutionally protected if it has a religious motivation but not, so far as I can see, if it has a non-religious motivation.
[/QUOTE]
This is effectively what I’ve been trying to say but apparently doing a poor job of. I’m not eloquent.
Bumpety-bump-bump.
PDF of the Supreme Court decision in Holt v. Hobbs
A unanimous Court upheld a Muslim inmate’s religious exercise right to grow a 1/2 inch beard and struck down the prison regulation that forbid same.