dagblog - Comments for "Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Laws?"

Interesting. And an

Michael Maiello — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:27:58 +0000

In reply to When I was in the military, I

Interesting. And an excellent point. Thanks!

When I was in the military, I

Jerry — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:57:26 +0000

In reply to Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Laws?

When I was in the military, I objected to taking the flu shot because I was vegan and it was cultivated using chickens or eggs or whatever.

I was told by the command chain all the way up that since 'vegan' isn't a religion, my complaint was invalid even though I held my belief system in a higher regard than any of my colleagues abusing their religious beliefs for privileges.

"Speaking", I said, "as your

jollyroger — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:17:18 +0000

In reply to Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Laws?

"Speaking", I said, "as your attorney, when you live in a christian theocracy, it pays to be a christian church."

The rational objections raised by our resident wrestler are obviated by the mandate of the first amendment.

Turning to an area of personal interest, the marijuana example is made poignant by the Ayahuasca and Peyote exemptions from normal law enforcement granted the Native American Church and a Brazilian variant.

Thus we venture into the thicket of distinguishing rules of general application to one's which directly impact sacramental substances.

The arguments that D rightly brings to bear vis-a-vis Catholic medical or educational institutions militate as well against permitting a church per se to refuse to provide medical coverage for abortion services to the cleaning personnel.

My solution, free peyote, free dmt, free medicine for all...(free beer & chicken, too...)

Well put, destor.

Kudra — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:33:32 +0000

In reply to Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Laws?

Well put, destor.

I was listening to Tom

DF — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:21:59 +0000

In reply to Well, blue laws are an

I was listening to Tom Sullivan's show last week and caught some discussion about this. It's just too easy to explain why this concept of "religious freedom" doesn't work.

Some Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. What if a JW org wanted to start a hospital, like the Catholics operate all over the nation, but they want to refuse transfusions in their emergency room? What if that ended up being the only ER in town?

No one accepted this same argument when it was made by tax protesters during the Vietnam War. It's very much like the Dr. Laura argument that her right to free speech was somehow violated because her private employer didn't want to pay her to talk like that anymore. If organizations don't want to comply with federal employment law, they can get out of the employment business.

Well, blue laws are an

Michael Maiello — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:36:03 +0000

In reply to I think there are still some

Well, blue laws are an interesting topic here. If the majority in my community thinks there should be a day without retail alcohol sales, well... that's that. What the Catholics want is an exception to the law. It would be like me saying, "The majority here wants to liquor sales on Sunday. But since I believe that I should be allowed to buy cognac any day of the week, I demand an exemption." The answer for me is not that I should get an exemption but that I should either work to change the local consensus or drive outside the country to get what I want.

The TPM reader's remarks

Elusive Trope — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:56:12 +0000

In reply to Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Laws?

The TPM reader's remarks provide another example of people are all for making personal sacrifices for the common good as long as they are not personally required to make the sacrifice.

I believe fervently that I should not have a higher effective tax rate than Mitt Romney for 2011. Can I be exempted if my bill turns out to be higher?

This provides as good as any example of the slippery slope of which you speak. This is what democracy is about. I want a more fair tax system - then I need to get those elected officials who agree with me into office. Until then, I need to keep abiding by the law.

If I strongly object, I can choose the path of civil disobedience, which accepts the fact that there will most likely be consequences as a result of this action.

Anon wants nothing more than special treatment. Either extend it to everybody (and enjoy an ungovernable society) or don't extend it to anyone.

A governable society requires that the individual sacrifices something to ensure the ability to achieve something closer to the greater good. The debate going forward (ad infinitum) is what is meant by the phrase "common good" and, if we can agree on that, how do we get there. The conservatives, citing an increase in investments back into the country, believe the lower tax rate for the type of income Romney enjoys does lead to a greater benefit to the common good. And so on and so on.

I think we can hold that a good portion of the country believes women should have access to contraception - that this improves the common good. This belief may or may not be directly informed by one's religious beliefs - this is irrelevant.

If the Catholic Church wants to deny access, then they need to persuade the public this is wrong way not just for themselves for society as whole - that their way will add to the common good.

I think there are still some

Donal — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:35:40 +0000

In reply to Your comment about being a

I think there are still some places that are dry on Sundays, because of Christian religious ideals. I know that the convenience stores in PA hang tarps over their beer coolers on Sunday morning. When I was a kid, we had even more blue laws, whereby stores just weren't open on the Sabbath. Then small Mom & Pop stores were allowed to be open, and then the supermarkets opened with limited staff, then all hell broke loose and Sunday became another shopping day, though most places still don't open until 10 or 11 AM.

The 1st Amendment protects

Beetlejuice — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:30:47 +0000

In reply to Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Laws?

The 1st Amendment protects one's belief from being manipulated by the government ... one is free to believe whatever one wishes. However, it seems the religious community has pushed the issue to include religious activity in the secular community. In short, a business running a hospital has to follow specific government policies and guide lines whereas a religious-based hospital is given a few free passes because of the 1st Amendment ... they get the skirt the law because of their religious beliefs.

Once a religion steps beyond the church doors and out into the public, the 1st Amendment should no longer apply ... not everything a church does outside of their sanctuary is covered by the mantle of the 1st Amendment.

While the 1st Amendment gives one the right to profess their beliefs in a manner of their choosing, it does not apply to their life activities in the secular world of other faiths.

Your comment about being a

Verified Atheist — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:14:34 +0000

In reply to While I take your point,

Your comment about being a conscientious objector made me do a little research. This was probably the best site I found: http://madhominem.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/atheism-and-conscientious-obj...

Basically, you can theoretically be an atheist and be a conscientious objector, but your statement that it has "religious overtones" is still correct. It's much harder to prove that you're a conscientious objector if you're not a Christian, and especially if you're an atheist.