The problem is not so much the churches as it is the media. As an Evangelical leader of sorts, I have to say that American Christians have been badly indoctrinated, misinformed, and weaponized by the likes of Fox News, conservative talk radio (Limbaugh and his ilk), and far-right politicians of the sort that also hijacked the Republican Party. And a generation has forgotten that separation of church and state is an essential part of our history. Indeed it shaped our constitution and our nation’s original values, in large part due to mass religious emigration from state church Europe as refugees. My ancestors came when Reformation era Protestants were being persecuted for daring to read the Bible on their own, in their own language, and interpret it for themselves, instead of relying on an obviously corrupt Catholic priesthood that replaced the gospel with church taxes, selling indulgences, and wars! But many Christians in the US spend far more hours listening to hateful media than Bible study or soberly learning church history. And those who reject Christianity are also becoming confused about what it actually is—not just good social works as some candidates want you to believe, but salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which should result in loving others and helping them, without discrimination. The secular media rarely talks about this or gets it right. Some pastors get it wrong too, and many are afraid to speak out against an angry mob.
34
"Christian Identity has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “a unique anti-Semitic and racist theology” that has held a position of “commanding influence” on the extremist right. What sensible person, or judge, would want to allow it to flourish inside a prison?"
This is a forehead-slappingly dumb take on freedom of religion. Freedom of religion--like freedom of speech--means we don't get to look at the content of someone's religion/speech and judge whether they can enact it based on how we feel about it. I can think of other religions I might describe as anti-semitic and dangerous, but their practice can't be forbidden because I don't like them.
"initially seen...as protection for minority religious practices, has become a powerful tool in the hands of a politically energized Christian majority." Waaah, I thought the law was going to be used to protect cool religions involving crystals and mushrooms, but now Christians are using it, waaaaah! Freedom for me but not for thee!
2
It seems that the comments are forgetting that this religious battle began during the Reagan Administration and continued through every single Republican Administration thereafter. The Republicans only survive as a majority party because of the support that they receive from the religious fanatics in America. Those fanatics do not even come close to being a majority of Americans and should not be given a free hand to practice their hatred of other people with the imprimatur of the U.S. Government. Religious fanaticism has caused the deaths of millions of Western Europeans over the centuries and it should not be supported in America. America is a CIVIL society and government, not a religious government. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
7
Good news for those two inmates: They're free to pray at any time, even while they're at work turning big rocks into little ones.
1
In case you don't know, the inmate populations of most of our prisons are divided up between racist gangs (Aryan Brotherhood, Black Guerilla Family, Mexican Mafia, etc)....
In that context, it is not surprising that a hate-religion is being practiced in prison - seeing how far racisim of all sorts is integrated into inmate culture by the inmates themselves....
In the non-imprisoned world, it should also not be surprising that people who are ideologically opposed to the concept of a regulated and imposed civil society (preferring free association) will use whatever tools they can to achieve their ends....
The same people who are petitioning the Supreme Court to uphold their "religious" rights to bigotry, intolerance, and-- in the case of refusing to pay for employees' birth control-- pure cheapskate sneakiness, are often the same people who don't want a mosque anywhere in their community. The fact that the Muslim god, "Allah' is precisely the same as the Old Testament god "Jehovah" is a simple fact which they simply ignore.
5
Predictably, when conservative religious zealots are the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, common sense vanishes and chaos will ensue.
I can easily see some white neo-nazi groups claim that their religion does not allow black people to be served in their bars and restaurants, nor on their buses or cabs. Back to the old days when discrimination based on race was open and upfront, the law of the land.
Trump will have fulfilled his promises to the ultra-right hate groups.
Hopefully, the coming election will throw Trump and the Spineless Senate Republicans out of office and we will begin approving judges who - wait for it - follow the law.
4
Very good article. Thank you. I recently heard a news segment on NPR's "Here and Now" about the attempt to decriminalize polygamy in Utah. V. Lowry Snow (Republican State Representative) was being interviewed and the first 90% of the interview made some modicum of "sense," but right at the end, it went off the rails, for me at least. Lowry started saying that he didn't want polygamists to be treated like 2nd class citizens (he said this directly after mentioning that Utah has taken in refugees from other countries) and that they (polygamists) shouldn't be discriminated against, and shouldn't experience bigotry. These concepts, when all thrown into a blender, make it difficult to separate the wheat from the proverbial chaff. By cloaking polygamy under the untouchable (invisible) fabric of religion.we as Americans unfortunately refuse to deal with the utter nonsense of religion(s).
2
I have been converted, in the light of world overpopulation, the spread of disease, the overbreeding of mental defectives, and climate catastrophes only curable by divine intervention to the worship of Moloch the Destroyer a.k.a. Baal. My religion endorses human sacrifice, particularly that of infants and children. I sincerely believe that we must make these sacrifices to win favor and save the world. So, all you who believe that if I sincerely believe this, I get to disobey the usual general laws against murder and mayhem, where can I build my temple and start my fires of sacrifice? WAKE UP, PEOPLE. The relative sincerity of anyone's beliefs about any thing cannot exempt one from laws enacted to protect society, especially the rule of law and our wonderful Constitution. All you Federalist "originalists" out there, tell me what the Founders actually thought and felt about religious exercise -- and it is NOT what these recent cases saya, is it?
3
Free Exercise is crucial, and the template for what we carelessly call Free Speech as a societal value.
It protects the most central movements of human conscientiousness. It says that when we believe G-d or conscience (see: US v Seegar deciding that a supreme being was not necessary to conscientious objection) or whatever is within us beyond our ken or control, we must be able to exercise that.
And all constitutional rights are subject to balancing.
Hatred of non-whites and Jews is so toxic that our laws can contravene it. Even if they claim God told them.
Because despite the cultural triumphalism that thinks secularism rules, our deepest intuitions of whatever origin, know that some things are not of G-d. Some things are Wrong. Reason cannot tell us when that is, but the Something More, can. Anti-Semitism and racism are wrong. So wrong that a professed god cannot redeem them.
Rather than fight all these people, lets join them. In the same way that the two prisoners were given the right to claim a religion, so can others. It is as much a religion to not believe certain things as to believe them. Therefore there is the religion of not believing in Jesus and of believing in some unknown guiding hand. There is the religion of believing that God created homosexuals as a way to control heterosexual overpopulation. Will these arguments be vetted? They should be, but as with the Taliban and Martin Luther, they may be rejected out of hand. But, at least they may have a fighting chance. Each cake maker will bake only for his own congregation. There will not be a shortage of wedding cakes or flowers. I am certain of that.
There are as many interpretations of religious texts as there are religious practitioners. And each interpretation is a potential religion in itself. This applies to all religions and not just Christianity.
God help any country that gives special dispensation to these "religions" to ignore the rules that enables society to function.
One wonders how the beliefs of ISIS, the Taliban and other extreme organisations fit into the schema.
Australia is going through similar contortions currently as our evangelical prime minister pushes for "religious freedom" legislation. Many people see it as more like something to allow religious bigotry than religious freedom and to relegate non-religious people to a category of second-class citizens with lesser rights. Many religious people see it as totally unnecessary. Analysis of current drafts of the legislation make it clear that it will backfire severely on its advocates as each religious belief system tries to impose its will on the others and non-religious people.
2
Perhaps I missed something... When did conservative Catholicism become our national religion? When was AG William Barr appointed US Bishop of the Catholic Church?
5
How can we be in a situation where 6 catholics and 3 jews decide what to do in an increasingly nor religious country?
2
All religion is ridiculous.
Frankly, a Christian denomination that believes in racial separatism is no less ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
But hey, the Constitution protects this form of hominid self-treatment for existential angst and the regular anxieties of life.
We reap what we sow....
2
Truth OR Religion.
3
"The court said the district judge, Phillip Green, had misapplied the law by weighing the prison’s interest in safety as part of his analysis of whether the prison was placing an improper burden on the men’s exercise of their chosen religion."
So MY religion (which I just devised in the time I am typing this) requires human sacrifice, because ... you know ... read Genesis 22: 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.”
And that is supposed to be OK? REALLY?
(I better get my old Constitutional Law and Criminal Law books out and do a review .... Hmmm .... What were my profs and I missing ?)
If a religion promotes yelling fire in a crowded theater or racism in a racist hot bed should society represented by the government sanction it? Does putting Christian in the name of a religion automatically make it exempt from the laws of society? I doubt Jesus Christ would sanction a religion in his name that espouses racism or anti semitism or any religion that sponsors hatred as a creed.
2
"If we don’t want hate groups to have a seat in the prison chapel, the time to start drawing lines is now."
But hate is their religion. Justice Thomas will sanctify it.
1
Confused by this. What qualifies this hate group as a religion? Presumably, prison authorities could disallow, for safety reasons, KKK meetings that might provoke confrontations between KKK inmates and African American ones. How are these Christian Identity folks different? More holy? How? Could inmates start a religion whose observances included sunbathing and require prison officials to provide time and facilities for such religious practice?
1
Even in grade school we understood the absurd defiance of expressions like, “I know you are but what am I?” and “It’s against my religion.” Now I know a good example to explain to my nephew how “laughing all the way to the bank” may be used.
1
This court will draw many " red" lines and they will knot.
This really isn't all that complicated.
You can't tell anyone what they have to believe or not believe.
And some of those believes we aren't going to like very much.
The court's doing the right thing saying the government needs to butt out of it.
2
I’m an atheist. So, I consider myself free. And tolerant of diverse viewpoints
I cannot understand how we’ve gotten to a place where religion dominates our political and governmental decisions and discussions. It’s ridiculous, in my opinion, to make decisions based on what that guy said what that guy said what that guy said what the Great Sky Wizard said. Let’s act like we’ve actually evolved.
4
we could fund medicare for all with property taxes on church real estate and then some
3
As a pharmacist who is pro-life, why should I be required to provide abortion-inducing medications to women whose pro-choice beliefs are protected? Do her civil rights outweigh mine?
1
YES.
3
Do you make religious decisions about every medication you dispense? You may be in the wrong profession if you can't see that your role is to dispense medications as prescribed by a physician, and not to make judgements about the people you serve. How do you know the woman hadn't just had a miscarriage, and the drugs were to expell the non-viable fetus which would save her a surgical procedure? If you are pro-life, don't have an abortion. But also don't try to project your beliefs onto everyone else.
4
Starting an argument by quoting the SPLC as an authoritative source is not an auspicious way to persuade anyone with any knowledge about these matters. And if the Supreme Court is unlikely to take this case of "Christian Identity" among two prisoners--well, then, I doubt that the SCOTUS will be likely to take the case. This doesn't apppear to be a moment of truth at all.
The free exercise clause does not pose a threat to civil society. It grounds liberty itself. There are rights no government, no matter how powerful, can rightly cancel.
Frankly, why the prison should "recognize" any religion in the first place is absurd. They have established 20 state religions and now find themselves in a bind. What should happen is that prisons allow people to worship in private in their cells. Period. Even the requirement to attend mass weekly does not extend to situations like being in solitary confinement. We got in this mess because institutions tried to bend over backwards to accommodate religions when they never should have done so. You can have a holiday tree but nut an Xmas tree or a Menorah.
Why do we give this most divisive part of American Society a tax exemption. Why are they coddled in way no one else could even dream of. Maybe we need to ask a serious question, is personal religion par of the common good.
Religion should be tolerated but not coddled. Nothing in the Constitution states the government must coddle the religion.
5
Lets see how consistent the conservative judiciary, and their political cheerleaders, are when someone says they don't want to serve gun owners because their religion views gun ownership as sinful.
Or if someone views harsh anti-immigration laws as sinful.
Or if someone vews spewing greenhouse gases as sinful.
2
So, medical plans offered by the owners of businesses who are Jehovah's Witnesses don't pay for blood transfusions?
2
We can solve the "separation of church and state" situation with one simple solution: tax religions. Yes, eliminate the tax-free status of religious institutions. Just watch how many disappear. Let's be honest, religions are nothing but money laundering operations for PACS and hypocrites.
103
@mrfreeze6 Some are social clubs, with an overlay of religion. Some are centers for social activism.
And of course, the prosperty gospel, send me money and G-D will reward you many fold.
2
@mrfreeze6 Totally agree with you. Religions need to pay taxes.
4
Be careful what you ask for. The progressive stance that we must be excepting of every culture gives those you don't admire as much right to practice their religion as anyone else. Just as free speech means everyone gets to voice their opinion, separation of church and state means that everyone gets to choose their religion without any input or control from the state. But as with free speech, it appears that progressives believe in their rights until they disagree with the people taking advantage of their rights.
2
@Dr B
No. Progressives believe that you may believe what you want, but you have no right, morally or constitutionally, to make me believe as you.
4
As the Hobby lobby case was a reproductive rights issues, I hope that the religious rights of 70% of Americans belief that life begins at birth or when viability can be established. The SCOTUS held in Hobby Lobby that " the deeply held belief that life begins at conception" was a religious belief. SCOTUS better rule that all Americans have Constitutional protection not just their religion.
Yesterday was Ash Wednesday. Our Episcopal priest preached on tolerance, asking for forgiveness for actions and that we are all responsible for acting in a Christian manner. Exactly the opposite of the rulings that are being pushed by the Catholic Church in this case and by groups of intolerance.
Please Supreme Court, embrace the Constitutional, Protestant and Jeffersonian view that exercise of religion is a PERSONAL choice and not to be dictated by government or political party. We mainstream Christians agree with this view.
3
In the 90s I clerked for a judge who, amongst her other responsibilities heard pro se claims from prisoners in federal penitentiaries. My favorite was the one from the prisoner who claimed he was a follower of the "church of steak and lobster" and his religion mandated that he eat one or the other every day. Unfortunately for him we questioned his veracity and he did not get relief from the regular prison fare. I did applaud his ingenuity though.
3
Cases like this are about power, plain and simple.
Since the 60s, Big Money biz interests have partnered with some conservative religious denominations in the US to promote very traditional social policies.
To religious leaders, this is about promoting what they sincerely believe is right and good. But to the biz interests, this is about using religion as a weapon to win elections and promote free market (i.e. unregulated) capitalism to their own benefit.
3
I find it odd that the Reactionary Roberts Court would condone individual nullification, even if based on religious grounds.
But then corporations are "people" with political rights.
And a bullet fired from within the US causing damages across an invisible border is immune from responsibility for the shooter.
I have a deep religious belief against paying taxes to irreligious and immoral governments that mistreat the least among us.
3
Is this the same Linda Greenhouse who recently characterized the current Supreme Court as consisting of five conservatives and four moderates.
The Southern Poverty Law Center which she quotes in labeling a conservative group a "Hate" group, had learned that they received much more attention and donations if they spent their time uncovering conservative hate groups than if they concerned themselves with Southern poverty.
The phrase "establishes a wall of separation between church and state" has been heard so often that most Americans probably think that it is part of the First Amendment. No, it only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Since most of the early colonists of North America were fleeing religious persecution, one would think that the second half of that clause should have been given the heavier weight. The "establishment" part only meant that the United States should not create a state religion as Great Britain had done with the Anglican Church and France with the Catholic Church.
But one would not have counted on Justice Hugo Black, who, as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, had given virulent anti-Catholic speeches, to somehow be confirmed as President Roosevelt's first Court nominee. Black was the most influential in establishing the hostility of state towards church. Fortunate man, for not many men are given the opportunity to do real damage to their most despised group.
1
@Bill Keating: If religion is forced on a person, they are not freely practicing. Law prohibiting coercion of religion are constitutional, though not as yet enacted.
1
I am a person of faith who considers myself a politial moderate. Lumping all religions into the same bucket with those that hold anti-societal views is a gross and vile slander for all people who chose to express any version of faith in the public space. The problem is that for every decision that protects first amendment rights for all people, people with extreme and frankly amoral views and activities will always seek to exploit the existence of the "social umbrella". On the other side, those who seek decisions which whittle away at those protections to benefit a specific agenda always find edge cases that -- taken to their conclusion -- endanger the whole civic fabric of first amendment rights in their entirety.
We as a people had better learn to be better than this.
4
“ It thus refuses to abide by the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, ”
So does that mean that if I want to become a bikini waxer, salons who don’t employ me for obvious reasons can be forced to do so since they are obviously discriminating against me in part because of my sexual orientation, and possibly worse, my gender? I could at least take a case?
I think these cases and Trumps evangelic position is appalling, but sometimes common sense should just accept a Catholic agency are not going to place kids in same sex couples. This should be their right. I assume there are other agencies. Move on.
Forcing people to adapt to change at a pace that only sees one sides has contributed to the culture wars as surely as the intransigence and bigotry of some on the other side.
5
Other responses have made this point, but it is worth restating. If I decided that paying taxes (e.g. to support the military or for any reason) violated my religious or just my moral principles, should the government be able to "coerce" me to pay them?
8
@Q
I would guess, with this court, that the answer is "yes".
Only wacky right wing things can nullify governmental policy.
1
@Q That matter was decided in U.S. v Lee (and others). The Amish lost.
"...but also with a generalized “moral exemption” for employers who object to covering birth control but who can’t claim a basis in religious doctrine for not following the law."
The religious radicals that push for this sort of thing always make the mistake that their side will always be used for good, or at least for what they perceive as good. But let's put this "employers can object to pretty much anything their little hearts desire" moral exemption in another context:
Let's say I'm an employer who has a moral objection to overpopulation. For that reason, I will pick and choose among the services available to my employees through our health insurance plan. Since I object to overpopulation, my plan will pay for birth control but not the diagnosis ore treatment of fertility problems. I will pay for abortion but not well-baby care. I will pay for sterilization but not maternity care. I will not cover the children of my employees at all, in any way, shape, or form. They're on their own. In other words, I will do the exact opposite of what the "Christian" nationalists want me to do but it will be their desired laws and court decisions that give me license to do it.
I can't imagine why employers haven't already jumped on this bandwagon. What's cheaper, abortion or childbirth?
6
Hobby Lobby, Inc. is a corporation, a construct under corporate law. Those owning the majority of shares in that corporation may have religious preferences, but the corporation should not. Allowing the owners to impose their religious beliefs on others through their corporation should not be allowed. Does a corporation go to church? Does it ever die? Does it vote? Does a corporation have freedom of - or from - religion? Can it change its mind independent of its owners? Is it a sentient being?
To me, one person's free exercise of religion ends when they begin to impose their beliefs on others. That is the gist of the argument: should the right to impose on others - and affect/restrict another's freedoms - be allowed because their "religion" is acceptable to the (current) majority political powers? Or does freedom to practice religion only exist on a personal level?
11
@Chris
Hobby Lobby's owners were no more "imposing their beliefs" on their employees than a Baptist business owner who refused to supply alcohol at a company party.
2
@I want another option
Parties are not workplaces. People need to work to support themselves. Many must take whatever job they can obtain.
So, employees who are not members of the same religion as Hobby Lobby's owners are, in fact, being denied the same medical benefits as those who work for other companies. Thus, nullifying a governmental purpose/legislation.
I note that you did not try to defend the notion that an artificial "person", created under the law for the sole purpose of for profit business, was granted the same rights as a natural person.
One does not need to drink alcohol for any reason.
4
@I want another option
There is a big difference between purchase of food and drink for an optional company party, and supplying government-mandated healthcare and discriminating against women.
There is an even bigger difference between a corporation and a wholly-owned proprietorship.
4
Discrimination in the name of religion is now as American as apple pie. Just pick a group of people you don't like, and go for it.
5
You have the freedom to do anything except take away some else's freedoms. When the religion of a hate group targets targets others and threatens their safety, doesn't that cancel out its religious freedom?
9
AFAIK, religions have always had and I expect will continue to have special, unique and, some might say even weird beliefs and practices. I offer as support for this statement, “magical underwear”, drinking “blood”, eating “human flesh”, genital mutilation and many more unorthodox and otherwise repugnant behaviors. Such practices are not likely to change any time soon.
The issue in this case is whether the State must recognize one additional “religion” in its prison system when it already recognizes twenty others.
My taxes support prisons and I am concerned about how my money is spent. With that in mind, I do not care what anyone chooses to believe or even how they act, as long as what they do or what they believe 1) does not infringe on the rights of others and 2) dord not require any form of financial support beyond what would normally be expended.
It would be relatively straightforward to make the decision whether or not to accommodate any specific “religious” belief or practice if it was required to meet those two criteria. Prisoners should be free to discuss any topic, sing/hum/chant any tune (quietly one would hope), or move about in any non-threatening manner that they feel will please a specific deity, is required or appropriate and, most importantly, that they can financially support without any assistance. In short, given my irreligious beliefs, I should not be legally required to provide financial support to the claimed “religious” beliefs of anyone.
1
I hope the religious people who feel that they are 'winning' realize the price they are paying. More and more they are seen as tyrants trying to impose their often-differing beliefs on everyone else. More and more they are seen as corrupt political agents using religion as a shield. And the reason they are seen that way is because it's true.
10
All religions are basically businesses cloaked in the rubric of belief. They are Walmart wit CEOs in robes surrounded by buildings built and supported by stockholders. The Constitution allows the free practice of religion but forbids government sanction of one or another. Their tax free status is a government dole in disguise and should be done away with. Religions should be taxed and adherent"s contributions should be seen not as donations but rather as stock purchases. A realistic view of religion would go a long way toward keeping government neutral and out of our courts.
9
My goddess says your god is fake.
8
I'm starting my own religion. Its doctrine says that it is against God's will for me to pay taxes in America. I'm sure Justice Alito will affirm that it is not for the Court to say that my religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial, and vigorously defend me when my case makes it to SCOTUS.
7
Perhaps those who claim religion as a reason to opt out of obamacare without penalty should explain why they remain as part of an American society that allows for other people to engage in practices which are out of favor with the protester's own religion. No one is forcing anyone to actually use a system they're opposed to. We require our citizens to pay taxes to keep our society running. For purposes they use and don't use.
If scotus permits withdrawal from the healthcare without penalty because of religious reasons, but be permitted to retain citizenship/residency in the US, could not the same reasoning be used to exempt someone from paying taxes into a system which permits practices objectionable to one's religion?
I imagine if the healthcare objection is granted it will be a very narrow decision, focused solely on the healthcare system. But how scotus would explain away the same reasoning, their own reasoning, if it's used for income tax opposition, would be an amusing argument to see.
1
What point have we arrived at when Antonin Scalia sounds like a liberal?
6
Where do we draw the line?
Today, human sacrifice is illegal. What happens tomorrow when some group claims that it is an integral part of their religion? Will the court find a way to justify forbidding that practice while allowing others the right to practice their sincerely held beliefs?
What happens when someone claims heroin is part of their religions sacrement?
What if someone's religion requires the extermination of infidels or gentiles? What if someone's religion demands the shunning of Christians?
The choice is clear, either the beliefs of all religions are taken into account, or the beliefs of no religions are taken into account.
For a country that claims to support religious freedom, the later is the only way to go.
4
Certainly the court recognizes that in most churches, mosques and synagogues women are not allowed to be ordained, teach, pray aloud in the presence of men, and as part of their religious culture not even allowed to speak in the presence of men. With centuries of normalized misogyny have contributing to untold societal damage world-wide, I feel the judges have no option but to rule in favor of the racist prisoners.
Would all this be mute if there were a couple of Jewish or African Americans who also wanted to partake in those services? Who determines who can pray and who can't? If those of color or faith chose to pray under this "religion" and were denied, that would seem to me to not be a functioning "religion"
The problem facing us is not promoting "hate groups to have a seat in the prison chapel."
American Catholics in my experience are not themselves homophobic or misogynist. But their clergy and their party are. The end is to have installed justices who act as a hate group on the bench.
1
All major religions are the products of very, very fertile ancient imaginations and therefore should never supersede the Law of the Land. Thus a prison should be able to make decisions based on inmate safety first, fantasy second.
The SCOTUS should not have allowed Hobby Lobby to deny any type of medical insurance coverage to its employees, based on the religious beliefs of its owners. Were these business owners Islamic Fundamentalists, mandating all female employees wear hijabs, guess how they would have ruled...
Of course the SCOTUS has a history of being on the wrong side of history(1857 Dred Scott decision, for example) so never underestimate its ability to be blatantly, tragically wrong.
9
@Victor The great American historian Don Fehrenbacher once wrote that Judge Taney’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott versus Sandford amounted to nothing less than a summons to the newly formed Republican Party to disband. I fear that the implications of the reactionary decisions feared by Ms. Greenhouse in the coming months will be no less clear and sinister.
1
Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution, is starting up an LGBTQ legal clinic in its law school in Spokane WA. The Spokane Diocese bishop, Bishop Thomas Daly, who has no authority over the university, recently objected, stating "...the LGBT rights law clinic’s scope of practice could bring the GU Law School into conflict with the religious freedom of Christian individuals and organizations.”
So essentially these theocratic types consider THEIR "religious freedom" to prevail over anyone else's freedom and establishes a right to repress any conflicting belief or activity conducted by anybody else. That's not religious freedom, that's blind theocratic fascism.
11
A court which puts individual religious practice above all social obligation will sooner or later find itself and all secular law obsolete. The ultimate case might arise from a new religion which would have as a central belief the maxim that "thou shall not bow before the laws of any secular court".
The court is trending toward a kind of institutional suicide by succumbing to the doctrine of religious supremacy.
7
As the Framers understood, no single religion should have priority over others. Let all Christians play by the same rules in the public sphere. Many Christian sects support & sanctify same-sex marriages and families.
7
A potent reminder of why the November 2020 election is so important for Democrats to win. Trump won two seats on the Supreme Court. Our next President will likely have the opportunity for at least one, if not two seats. Bader-Ginsburg and Thomas.
16
We see a similar "absolutist" view of the Constitution on display in many of the hot button issues of our time. Often it is pushed by the conservative side but the more liberal side has also had the view when it suits them, and from both sides there have been unintended consequences.
When it comes to the "right to bear arms" conservatives insist on virtually no regulation at all resulting in gun ownership gone amuck and gun deaths through the roof.
When it comes to the right to free speech, liberals insisted upon protecting all speech which paved the way for Citizens United, endless fake news, the Facebook free for all, and a president whose every utterance is more likely a lie then anything resembling the truth.
Even the Civil War, and for that matter our continued racial strife has its grounding in an absolutist view of "State's Rights", so that the right of states to enact slavery, segregation, discrimination, and exploitation is argued by conservatives beyond control of the federal government.
Ultimately, we are a nation that in the name of absolute freedom has turned our own individual freedom into an absolute right to take away other people's freedom.
@zb: Optional slavery was the only excuse there ever was for "State's Rights".
Absolutely the most frightening article in today's paper.
Thank you Ms. Greenhouse.
10
As an outsider the first thing that occurred to me was the fact that America became, because of religious discrimination when the Pilgrims left Europe to escape persecution.
That religious bigots are now demanding the right to discriminate and, are being put in charge of your Judicial systems is frightening.
Let's get ready for more death for the sake of god, the reason for more wars and death than anything other than the pursuit of power.
9
@Patrick: The Pilgrims left Amsterdam for the wilderness because Dutch secularism seduced their children. They could practice their religious extremism in America without their children running away.
5
@ Patrick
“The Pilgrims came to America to worship God as they thought right and prevent others from doing the same.”
1
We shouldn’t forget the Pilgrims left in order to practice their religion freely. Then felt free to persecute others who did not share their version of faith. The history of the US is full of these contradictions, but it is incredibly sad that the slow and hard won improvements we were seeing in religious tolerance, acceptance of racial, gender and sexual orientation differences are being eroded so rapidly by our current courts and government. I am almost relieved that my parents, survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, aren’t here to see the Supreme Court of their adopted country determine that a right wing hate group has the rights of a religion. It would be like calling Nazi’s a religion. They may not call themselves that name, but their beliefs are the same! I truly wonder how far we will stray from our constitution and the hopes of the founding fathers.
2
Paying taxes, contributing to a health care plan, baking a cake, or arranging flowers are not religious practices, but praying and holding a wedding in a church are. Protecting so-called religious freedom by authorizing individuals to discriminate in the name of their religion while conducting secular acts related to non-religious vocations is a prescription for social disintegration. Everyone will then be free to declare a religious belief that excuses them from loving their neighbors as themselves. And, they will then be guilty of violating not only man's laws, but God's.
6
Religious faith is, or ought be, a private matter between a believer and his/her God. Except when the believer's faith makes him/her a proselytizer.
Any religion that proselytizes, considers its Way the only Way, its Truth the only Truth and that its duty to God is to impose that Way and Truth on Others can not be considered reasonable, reasoning or reassuring.
Nor can that religion's adherents/enablers.
5
@HapinOregon: Jesus is said to have advised his followers to pray in private because to do so in public was more for show to the people than to God.
3
Judaism is widely regarded, especially in Orthodox circles, as inherited through the mother's line. The prison-sect denounced in this article sees being "white" as a qualification for membership. In short, both religions posit biology as the prerequisite for membership. It is illogical to support one as viable prison worship and denounce the other.
It is a bad idea to restrict religion based on its theology. If the practices of adherents are dangerous, then sanction individuals who implement them in violation of regulations.
1
@Observer You have misrepresented Judaism and wind up comparing apples to oranges.
While it is true that Jews believe that only a Jewish mother can make a Jewish baby, it is also true that non-Jews can convert to Judaism. The religion of one's mother does not prevent a non-Jew from converting.
On the other hand, it is impossible for a non-white to "convert" to being white.
Nevertheless, based on precedent, it would seem logical to ban all organized religious observances in a prison since it can easily become impossible to provide support for everyone's personal beliefs.
Inmates can pray on their own time and in their own cells.
6
Where would we be if slaveowners had successfully used the free-exercise clause to justify their enslavement of Africans. There were many who made articulate and passionate arguments that it was the responsibility of Christians to care for Africans through enslavement. They quoted the Bible. They appealed to reason. It is the most blatant example of religion used as a justification for hatred and racism. Christian Identity is another. It can not be allowed legitimization by the Supreme Court.
11
As I know Linda Greenhouse is aware, once Scalia’s opinion on democratic government and religious conscience is breached, there’s far more to be concerned about than hate groups having a seat in the prison chapel. For Scalia’s understanding rests on a long backdrop of Court decisions that address this issue, from denying medical treatment to one’s children to paying taxes, and more. These will return, much to the horror of those who now, themselves, demand exemption from democratically fashioned laws in the name of religious conscience.
2
I really appreciate the clarity and background you bring to the discussion of these issues. I'm a big fan of your columns.
5
So, somehow this is all the fault of the Supreme Court's taking seriously a company's desire to not pay for birth control. Really? And it's not the fault of 50 years of increasingly doctrinaire legal obscurantism as it demonstrates that everyone has every right all the time for anything that has lost its way in a self created labyrinth of logic chopping.
Maybe trying to apply the full panoply of civil rights discovered since the 60's to one of the areas of national life (the other being the military) where such rights are expressly denied by law and logic is the reason for the absurd results.
Maybe, just maybe, the justice system may want to work on such problems as mistaken convictions, lawsuit abuse and the fact that 98% of criminal cases are resolved by a bargain struck outside the protections of the courtroom before they worry about such bizarre cases as these.
3
This is all a depressing situation for critical thinking persons who can't understand why the courts would grant favor to groups who claim direction given to them by an invisible friend, 'aka' God. We non-believers would prefer that courts adjudicate disputes that occur in the three-dimensional real world, rather than engaging and entertaining religious actors who simply concoct mumbo-jumbo delusions in support of their disconnect from reality.
9
Oh, my...Linda Greenhouse is complaining about judges following where the law leads them...
Perhaps it is not a problem of the judges but a problem with the law?
Ms. Greenhouse seems to be far more willing to judge cases based on her favored outcome rather than judging them on the basis of what the legislatures and the courts have established as holding forth.
I wonder how she continues to get away with supporting law only when it agrees with how she would decide the case.
It's Ms. Greenhouse's approach that is frightening...
And, decidedly unconstitutional.
10
@The Owl seems like you're describing what federal judges do pretty much every day. Whether it's federal courts, appeals courts, or even the Supreme Court, many judges do look for their favored outcome.
2
But aren’t you accusing the author of doing exactly what you do—support the law only when it agrees with your desired outcome?
I don’t agree that Greenhouse does that, but I notice that the most activist justices on the Supreme Court always come from the right. Scalia called himself an originalist, yet ignored whole passages in the Constitution when it suited him.
2
@JP ...
And that, sir, is a real danger to our Constitution...
Note, if you will, in a recent concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the ability of judges to create common law is severely limited.
It was a shot across the bows of judges that think that they can create law independently from the Congress.opinion
1
"In the Hobby Lobby case six years ago, the court gave dispositive legal weight to the claim by owners of two for-profit businesses that the legal requirement to include contraception coverage in their employee health plans would make them complicit in the sin of birth control."
That is not accurate. The decision is only for a very closely held family company; and, it only applied to two types of contraception. The health plan at Hobby Lobby allowed many other types of contraception.
8
@Randy
Hobby Lobby has no medical expertise on Birth Control and should not be allowed to decide what kind of birth control its employees use.
HL’s only concern should be the 9-5 job performance of their staff, not their personal lives.
9
@Randy your statement is not accurate.
First, she's stating that the SCOTUS favors such claims by for-profit businesses. Whether or not it is for "closely held" businesses only holds true until another company tries to pull the came move.
Second, yes, Hobby Lobby chose what birth control they decided was appropriate for them to object to.
4
@Victor
Hobby Lobby was not attempting to "decide what kind of birth control its employees use. "
It was asking for an exemption to paying for "birth control" that the owners viewed as abortifacients. While I agree that an employee has no right to tell their employees how to live their private lives, the Government also does not have the right to force private citizens or companies to violate their religious conscious.
"Pay for it yourself" is not a violation of anyone's freedom.
1
A religion, or sect thereof, may hold whatever views it wishes. However, it is wrong for any of the three branches of the federal government, or the states' government, to legal standing to religions, regardless of their views, especially when their views violate fundamental Constitutional principles and values. For example, a "religion" whose raison d'etre is the promotion of voter suppression [much like the majority of justices on the Supreme Court], should not have legal standing. What will next be deemed a genuine religion? -- one whose fundamental tenet is the inferiority of white people [surprised you with that one, I bet], or one that believes that their members are exempt from all laws because they had visions that God told them this?
3
I'm afraid the train has already left the station of this, thanks to the election of Trump.
6
This doesn't strike me as anything new. I seem to recall a case years ago about the 'Church Of The New Song (CONS)," a group that argued that, amongst other items, they needed filet mignon as part of their religious observance inside prison. While prisons have granted wide latitude in terms of religious observance, I don't believe that that request was granted. And, that group was also aligned with white supremacist views.
4
If these religious exceptions prevail in court, can I stop paying the portion of my taxes that go towards the military? I am a religious pacifist.
12
As to the case in question, I fail to see how restricting admittance to a religious ceremony to those who practice that religion is in any way harmful to the safety of the prison system. Shouldn't Hindu's be allowed to restrict Muslims from their ceremonies, for instance?
1
I don’t think the question is whether Christian Identity excludes other faiths, but whether it’s a hate group with ties to neo-Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists that wants to recruit other inmates to foment racial violence. It’s like adding a chapter of ISIS to your local prison.
Not a good idea.
1
People disingenuously using religion are going to ruin it for all the people who aren't trying to impose their beliefs on others. Y'all better rein in your co-religionists, or start budgeting to pay taxes for your church.
10
As an Orthodox Aztec I am heartened by this turn of events. Now where did I put that obsidian knife....
11
"Religious freedom" is nothing more than dangerous window dressing and an attempt by bigots, racists and others to codify and Constitutionalize discrimination.
17
Driving really fast and risking a fatal auto accident brings me closer to God. To promote my new church, I think I'll get some poster board and stuff from Hobby Lobby.
4
An extremely well-written and well-researched article, Ms. Greenhouse presents the devastating argument that the petitioners in both Espinoza and Fulton seek the contradictory position of wanting normalized status while simultaneously getting special treatment. She is able to take the abuse of an esoteric clause of the 1st Amendment and present it with clarity and forewarning.
This discussion also highlights the court's opening of a dangerous slippery slope of precedent with decisions like Burwell v Hobby Lobby. Consider the hypothetical that a for-profit company could someday argue it is antithetical to their religious beliefs to offer any health care to employees at all, or to pay their employees less than the legally required minimum wage. Would this Hobby Lobby decision (and potentially these other free-exercise cases) not give the employer standing to deny those benefits in contradiction of the generally-applied law?
4
For a country whose constitution separates church from state, America spends an inordinate amount of time deciding how laws apply to religion.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. The decision to deny these prisoners a separate space to practice their religion was based purely upon preserving the safety of the prison. Seems to me that safety takes precedence over religious freedom in every single case. Of course, I also think safety should take precedence over the right to own a gun as well and it's pretty clear where America stands on that.
6
@Mr. Adams
I do not see how prison safety would be more impacted by a separate space for whites-only prayer than by the mere existence of the Christian Identity folks in that prison.
No religious organization of any kind should be eligible for special treatment or mistreatment under any law in the United States.
Each of us is free to believe whatever we choose to believe, including nothing, without interference from government or other people who believe differently.
I have no sympathy for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Ltd., in Denver. He operated a business, open to the public, and should be required to serve anyone who enters his place of business to purchase his product. I am sure he makes an elegant cake and other bakery items, but I will believe he is an artist when his cakes show up in the National Gallery, the Louvre. et al.
I wonder how Mr. Phillips would feel, if he sought to buy a new set of tires, or more flour and sugar used in his business, and the seller(s) of these and similar items refused to accept his business, because he is religious bigot?
Sadly, the US Supreme Court chose to render. at best, an incomplete decision, avoiding the real issue at hand: the right of citizens to violate the law, because of their religious beliefs.
The Court did condemn the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for belittling Mr. Miller for his beliefs. Their actions were as wrong as Mr. Miller's.
Equal protection under the law is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and should not be subject to religious interpretation or exception.
Mr. Miller is free to make his case to his god, if and when he has the opportunity.
9
@NRK
Never mind that Mr. Phelps offered to sell them any item available for sale on the racks in his shop. He only refused to do a custom job for an event that he believes is amoral.
We must prevent religion from polluting our public policy and education if we like to have a civilized, developed democracy, as our founding fathers wanted.
Most of the current politically polarizing issues like abortion, climate change, minority/LGBT rights, education policy (including spending public money on private/charter schools which are all religious in nature, teaching evolution etc.), racism/slavery, immigration (of non-Christian/Evangelicals and promoting Christian/Evangelicals from other countries) etc. arise of religious fundamentalism. Even seemingly non-related issues like gun control, GMO, and other issues that need some basic or rudimentary understanding of data/fact, logic, and science, indirectly depends on that as well.
After 1926's Scopes trial, the situation improved significantly. Then it all changed. Officially that started around 1976 with deeply religious Reagan. But both the parties, including progressive Democrat Jimmy Carter, started embracing that Christian fundamentalism more. Since then it's all downhill.
The best way to tackle religious right is not to invoke religious left but by promoting and strengthening our science education at all levels of schools, in each and every public and private/charter schools, besides promoting truth (must not be dependent on religion or any holy book) in the society and in media.
12
Everything is broken
Things get really tough when the broken gets broken.
The result is the current state of American politics.
2
With apologies to Potter Stewart, I don't know what religion is, but I'll know it when I see it.
Where, oh where do we draw the line?
2
What is going to be easier; packing the Supreme Court with 4 more justices; or impeaching those justices who don't deserve their seats on the bench?
The republican party has spent the better part of the last half century dismantling our Constitution and our democracy. If We the People get our government back this November there is going to be a lot of work to do putting our republic back in order.
American Catholic bishops have been behind the idea of an autocracy rising up in the U.S. because there has not been a better example of an autocracy gone mad than the autocracy of the Church.
They go on about the power and prestige and infallibility of their pope until they get one who actually hews to the teachings and example of Christ. Then they question his rise and his right to be their shepherd. Too liberal!
5
@Bob Laughlin ...
I have no idea what you are reading in the law, sir, but the Supreme Court for the better part of half-a-century has leaned left when it chose to leave "the middle".
I understand that you are upset that Trump appointed two conservatives to the Court. But, I would suggest that you judge what the Supreme Court does and says based on an understanding of the laws that apply to the circumstances before them.
I, as a conservative, grant the four liberal justice on the Supreme Court a careful reading of their
opinions before making a judgment...
And remember, judgments rendered to achieve a desired outcome are judgments that can easily be contrary to the rule of law.
You do believe in the rule of law, do you not?
3
@The Owl
I'm a librarian; suggesting relevant reading material is my game. For you, I'd like to suggest Supreme Inequality by Adam Cohen. You might want to reconsider your position that SCOTUS has "leaned left" and is motivated by the rule of law.
https://nyti.ms/2Pwe9Wt
1
The Right is against political equality for all people and against the Constitution. Their bizarre interpretations of the First Amendment is just more proof.
They want their greedy, violent, hateful interpretation of "Christianity" that ignores everything that Jesus Christ actually said to be the basis of our laws, even though the First Amendment plainly forbids that. Their politicians judges are corrupting the Constitution to promote the idea that they are "more equal" than the rest of us.
The Right thinks that the Bible is a list of excuses for their crimes. They are doing the same to the Constitution, on TV.
The Left argues passionately for the principles ratified by super-majorities in the Constitution, especially Equality and Justice.
The Right attacks and undermines those principles at every opportunity, especially Equality and Justice.
The Left is moderate.
The Right is extreme.
There is no halfway between a Constitution and no Constitution.
Choose a side.
6
@McGloin ...
I choose what the Constitution and the laws say, not what I hope or think they say.
And were you ever to come before a court, I am sure that you would be counting on that sort of administration of justice.
2
Any belief a person has can be claimed to have a religious nature. Furthermore, we often don’t know the mind of the person claiming the belief.
It has been common for religions to make a whole lot of bigoted beliefs part of their practice. I am sure that the author wouldn’t force Catholics to worship under a woman priest for instance.
Also when you limit the freedom of conscience to only well known and extensively practiced religions. You give no protection to that of atheists or non-believers who don’t have those cloaks to protect their deeply held beliefs.
Now I believe there is a great danger in denying anyone public accommodation based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
That the baker who will sell a cake to one person, but not the same cake to another, is wrong. That this is the way to castes and unequal protection. That there is harm being done by action not thought in the bakers case, which is not shown in the prison accommodation.
If there is a white supremacist religion, and they wish to congregate with their co-religionists, and we go to great effort to accommodate the practice of other religions, I don’t care how stupid or wrong a persons belief is. We don’t think for them.
Though we can certainly prosecute them for acting upon it, and can make that reasoning an unacceptable motive that makes the crime more punishable. And we should do this.
Linda Greenhouse wants to patrol peoples minds and that is wrong.
1
@Edward Brennan: The whole idea of encouraging anyone to believe anything without objective substantiation is a monstrosity.
4
We have seen this story before in America. Consider the post-civil war south and its Southern Baptist religion that justified slavery and then white supremacy in the King James Bible.
Discrimination, Jim Crow, lynchings, KKK, white citizen's councils, poll taxes, gerrymandering, redistricting--all were used post civil war and were justified through the southern interpretation of the bible.
We see in the modern Republican Party and all of its politicians, including the 5 Republican politicians on the Supreme Court, the vestiges of this system.
We can reasonably expect them to allow racial discrimination in the name of firmly held religious beliefs.
Theocracy is on its way to America.
9
@Ironmike: The foundations of slavery, the Electoral College and Senate apportionment, still haunt this infantile nation.
4
How about this? I promise to stay away from your church in exchange from you keeping your church out of my government. Deal?
8
Fine...
As long as you keep YOUR church out of OUR government.
1
Enough with kowtowing to religions. The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the first amendment means that you can have your religion, not that you can have others fund it or bend over backwards to accommodate it. If they want to play the game of excluding gays or other religions or whatever exclusions their "beliefs" demand of them, then I want to play the game of not paying for their religious activities.
8
While you’re at it: what about tax exclusions for religion-owned real estate and religious cash income?
Believe what you want. I believe it’s a racket.
4
Freedom of religion means the freedom to practice your own religion and live according to your beliefs. If everyone in the U.S. has freedom of religion, then your beliefs end where theirs begin. Laws protecting equal treatment can’t be superseded by any religion without imposing on the rights of people with other beliefs. Judge Alito is right in pointing out it’s not about a religious view being untrue. It’s not for anyone to judge how one lives UNLESS it impacts other people. Breaking laws, denying employees services that the law allows - that’s an imposition on the beliefs of others. Then it’s about using power to control others. No one is preventing the inmates from believing as they choose, but they want to get the prison to make a white identity group, essentially help form a gang. The Catholic group is acting to exclude people from legal, beneficial, activity based on their beliefs. They are practicing their religion on other people - and asking the state to fund it. No other “sinners” are excluded. Anyone who’s been divorced? Anyone not a catholic?
Why is my belief system less valid than yours because you can paper over your prejudices with a self-declared religion belief? Why would society want laws disregarded based on some individual’s untrue or bigoted beliefs? Where are everyone else’s rights? Protect the practice of any religion, but if it’s not about practicing it in you OWN life, then it’s about imposing it on someone else’s.
11
Limiting the discussion to the specific Michigan prison case, so far the prison has denied two "congregants" access to a space for the purpose of conducting their "service." IMHO, a content-based (speech or religion) prohibition against access to a space offends the 1st Amendment. A more difficult question would be if the prison identified the adherents of this "religion" and reassigned them as widely as possible (the Michigan Dept of Corrections has lots of locations, some in the remotest regions of the UP) to disperse the "congregation," to enhance security by reducing the number of possible combatants assembled in any one place.
Moment of truth on religion?? Hardly...because there are more pressing issues related to combative, extremist religious fundamentalism mixed with racism that are present and very active in our society and they are not given the attention they deserve.
Christian Nationalism is on the rise since Trump came to power.And yes, the President is an enabler of religious extremism and racism.
In the last three and a half years we have been living under the threat of racism and the rise of white nationalist groups that represent fundamentalist religious beliefs that are extremely dangerous to our Country...they are active and able to harm our society. And nothing is being done because we have in the White House a powerful man who enables these extremist social groups.
135
@Luis Rodriguez
You are agreeing with Ms. Greenhouse about the issue.
4
@Luis Rodriguez we don't have a powerful man in the white house, we have a conman that is backed up and enabled by a powerful Senate. The Senate has failed us also.
16
@Luis Rodriguez - Sir, did you ever wonder from where the members of these "white nationalist groups" were coming? I don't really know what you mean by saying that Trump is an enabler of racism, but I think you would have to admit that the men did not all come into existence in the first two years of a Trump regime.
For well over a decade now, male high school graduates of both the white and black races have been enrolling in four year colleges at a rate of ten to eleven percent less than the female graduates. See the two articles published in the Atlantic in 2017 on this subject, or a few more recent articles.
Not only do the men start out in much fewer numbers than the women, but only about sixty percent of the males graduate compare to the females. This amounts over the last decade to a shortfall of about 30 million men who have not graduated compared to women.
That bachelor's degree is the necessary key for entry into well paid and respected jobs. Those men are becoming the less prosperous and certainly less respected men of their generation.
Undereducated and underemployed young men are a very bad demographic for a democracy. In their anger and envy at being at the bottom of the pole, they are likely to end up in groups very destructive to democratic ideals. I don't think that mentioning the "Brown Shirts" in connection is going too far. We have neglected this problem for many years now. More money and policy needs to be allocated to lower the numbers.
10
I have published extensively on the role of religion in the United States especially in the context of the federal RFRA, state RFRAs, and RLUIPA. I am of two minds about the topic. On one hand, I have argued against religious exemptions for businesses open to the general public. Open to all, serve all. On the other hand, I have also argued that secular conscience is the moral equivalent of religious belief and therefore should be its legal equivalent as well. This conclusion dates back to the Vietnam era when conscientious objectors were permitted to avoid induction despite the fact that their beliefs were not rooted in a particular faith. Why are my secular beliefs rooted in my conscience less worthy of protection than the same or similar beliefs founded in religion? Research is an interesting pursuit - sometimes it takes you to places you least expect.
5
When reliable and credible sources of information are so important and the Times has a reputaion as such a source, it should not publish erroneous analysis. In the case analyzed by Ms. Greenhouse, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did not say that the prison's interest in safety was an improper consideration. It said that in a three part analysis safety was not to be considered at step two in determining whether the Michigan state prison's rule placed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Safety would be considered at the third step. Please maintain your credibility.
1
Well hey, I'm starting a new faith that finds that paying taxes to any governing body that has appointed judges or attorneys who are part of the Federalist Society to be abhorrent - an abomination, in fact.
How many new, carefully-tailored religions will it take to pick apart the current court's enthusiasm for religions meddling in other people's freedom from a particular faith's views?
294
@b fagan
Hey, how do I join?
8
@b fagan ~~~ great idea.....will the irs buy it though?
4
@b fagan
Oooh, I’ll join that new faith of yours. Sign me up!
7
This is only an issue because it involves "Christian" religious sects. Could you imagine if the exact same arguments for free-exercise were posed by adherents of Islam? I'm sure there would be a renewed interest in the separation of church and state.
9
What a mess the Roberts Court is making of first amendment religious liberty jurisprudence! It will require a generation to undo the distortions inflicted upon the law by these misguided extremists.
Stare decisis principals will have to be suspended in this corner of the law in order to summarily do away with these instances of "scary decisis."
Linda Greenhouse says: "...the Supreme Court has handed... a series of decisions instructing judges to accept almost any religious claim, no matter how preposterous, at face value." Well, some of us think that all religious claims are "preposterous". But we're not going to police people's thoughts just because we think they are silly and infantile. The U.S., on the Right and the Left, want it both ways: paying lip service to "Separation of Church and State", but giving public recognition (and tax breaks) to religious organizations. "In God We Trust" is proclaimed right on our currency. Well not all of us. Blame yourself Linda, not just the people on the other extreme of the political spectrum who also have their pet religions.
4
@Chris Noble
The goal isn't to police their thoughts. I can't think of many thoughts more risible than the thought that the following sequence of events constitutes murder, but apparently Hobby Lobby does: a woman may take a pill may thin the lining of her uterus, and that pill may fail, meaning there is a possibility that she will ovulate and the egg will be fertilized, and, maybe, the fertilized ovum will not implant. Despite the fact that it would be impossible to empirically determine whether the pill caused thinning of the endometrium that approximately caused the fertilized ovum to fail to implant, these people believe that this pill can "kill a person" and violates their beliefs.
They think they're entitled to their own facts and to assign spiritual weight to these made up notions and SCOTUS agrees.
I think it's absurdly stupid, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Hobby Lobby wants to use its delusions to prevent other women from making their own health care decisions.
1
Rational consistency or consistent adherence to principle -- the cornerstone of good law -- are not strong suits of religious conservatives. If some law favors them, they love it and claim the God will now bless us. If that same law at another time does not favor them, they hate it and warn us will all be judged for defying God.
One is tempted to say, "Can't you folks make up your minds?" But they have made up their minds. They have long ago decided that all that matters is that they win and dominate society; anything less, to use Donald Trump's favorite complaint, is "unfair."
One cannot reason with that way of thinking, because it is inherently irrational, if not downright antagonistic to it.
166
@pjc
Yes, the Right rejects reason (science, facts, math, logic...).
The Right also rejects the framework for debate which is the Constitution. Look at how they unconstitionally refused DEBATE on Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
If you reject reason, and reject the framework for debate, you cannot be "reasonable people with whom we happen to disagree."
Reasonable don't reject reason and try to replace debate with political violence.
Until centrist realize that the Right is uninterested in compromise, but thinks you must lose all so they can win all, they will continue to help Republicans shred the Constitution.
The Right keeps saying, "the government is the enemy." "The government" IS Our Constitutional Republic. What part of "enemy" do Centrists not understand?
32
@pjc Amen!
7
@pjc
Religious conservatives generally believe two things: first, that God wants them to spread the faith by all means, and that the end of spreading the faith justifies the means; second, that the end of spreading the faith justifies lying about their belief that all means of spreading the faith are agreeable to God. An essential part of spreading the faith is denying that anything goes in spreading the faith while believing that anything goes in spreading the faith.
It is the same thinking that allowed Church leaders to hide priestly pederasty with a clear conscience (and a subtle rational-appearing theology).
12
It may be argued that the conservative Supreme Court Justices belong to religions that have been shown to be hate groups in the not too distant past.
Perhaps they should recuse themselves from voting on these cases.
2
In a way this is all chickens coming home to roost. Employment Division v. Smith was a case in which a Native American Church member sued after being fired for his participation in Native American Church services. The Institutionalized Persons act was a response to the humiliation of Native prisoners by forcibly cutting their hair as well as widespread abuse of incarcerated minorities.
Cruelty and sadism inflicted by heartless men on people who are in their power - enabled by the state - have led us to this point.
2
How many adherents does a religion need to be recognized as a group deserving special privileges, such as not paying taxes on their designated property? Pastafarians, you have a golden opportunity to declare yourselves and reap the tax benefits.
4
Hate groups in the prison chapel is obviously the very least if our concerns. The right to opt out from public policy based on the free exercise clause and laws is a recipe for both anarchy and theocracy, two things the Framers clearly wished to avoid. You know things are bad when we’re relying on Justice Scalia for guidance and even sanity. But, then again, it is the caveats and qualifications that he included in his decision in the Heller case (the case recognizing an individual 2nd Amendment right right to possess guns), in which he also recognized public safety as a legitimate interest justifying gun safety laws and regulations, that define the battle lines in that arena. Scalia both taketh away and giveth.
1
Perhaps there is, but I do not know. It seems to me that there should be some federal definition of religion, defined by practices common to the world's big religions. Sure, some might object, but what do we have, that is not guided by standards?
It is untenable that any small group can decide to found a religion, and thereby, be able to enjoy all the religious liberties accorded Christianity, Judaism and Islam, for example.
If we move to universal healthcare, the religious beliefs of your employer will no longer be able to deny you healthcare. Not should they.
8
It seems there is too much abuse of our Amendments. What seems reasonable becomes abused by people with a warped agenda benefiting few people.
First, I want to thank NYT for giving Ms. Greenhouse a forum. She is a jewel. Second, isn't the solution here an amendment of the Religious Freedom Act? The courts are doing their damage under its strictures, not the First Amendment. This is a problem of democracy, not constitutional interpretation.
2
The Court's law-and-order types and their clerks should have fun reconciling their beliefs about the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments' protection of criminals' rights with the "rights" of the incarcerated protected by the 1st Amendment.
In the end, one suspects that Alito et al will end up with something like, certain 1st Amendment rights are lost when one ends up in the slammer.
But, on the other hand, some on the Court might be sympathetic. Having limited 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights to help get bad folks into prison, maybe the Court will believe those criminals deserve a 1st Amendment break to make their, often long, incarcerations more tolerable.
"Give me that old time religion . . . ."
@Chris, this court' religious deferential will end up making a mockery of religion itself: ...all things are possible with-----(fill in the blank) it might turn out to be a good thing if the decisions are destined ,as it seems, to interfere with human rights.
Religious freedom has come to mean the ability of those in power (employers, merchants, pharmacists, county registrars etc.) to impose their own religious views on others. Their consciences are bothered by the "sins" committed by others; too bad. Religious freedom should only extend to your own practices: Nobody forces the Hobby Lobby owners (and bigots) to use contraceptives, or the bakers and florists to marry a same-sex partner. That is as it should be: religious freedom.
4
Trump and Republicans are using religion and related cultural issues in pursuit of raw power and the Supreme Court is now the enabler both in complete disregard of separation of church and state,
@Vivek Odd, too, that there have been zero reports of Trump making an appearance at any house of worship - unless his rallies stand in for revival meetings. Dang, I may have accidentally given him the idea to start his own religion for the tax benefits.
2
Could start a "church" that beloeves the worship fall things in nature? We meet in the open . Couldiwrite off my car to get to services, my house where I have meetings, my salary to family members who prepare the service as a tax write off? My travels to visit members and have services?
I understand this is what a lotto the TV preachers do Its why they love trump. If the SC OK's this i am organizing tomorrow!
"Christian Identity has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as 'a unique anti-Semitic and racist theology'..."
Oh, right. Nevermind the entire history of Catholicism and most other major religions having those traits. Older religions have the mileage that makes ridiculous doctrine more normal, or at least so ingrained that there's no way to stop it.
2
We must not enable hatred. Certainly, for a variety of reasons, hatred has always been the dark side of humanity. Religious hatred included. As the human population has grown from a few 100 million in the "dark ages" to 1 billion at the the founding of our American republic, today at nearly 8 billion and moving to 10 billion (2050), the pressure on all aspects of life only grow more intense on the earth with fixed resources. Couple hatred with dangerous weapons in the hands of people to whom hatred is now deeply embedded in their psyche and couple weaponized hatred with their "religion" and one can easily see where this leads. Think about the current coronavirus. Just a few people now but all science and responsible leaders see the potential for a massive pandemic. A few people with deep hatred and unlimited guns and bullets can wreak havoc on millions of people, and worse.
There must be a time when "we" make certain choices that we did not have to make 250 years ago. People entrusted with wisdom (very few leaders today) and responsibilities must use their minds and voices to speak truth and say, "no, we cannot give hatred and liars the podium in the 21st century. We must not enable hatred or we risk further destruction of life and the natural world. Time to use our voices to speak of love, courage and truth (as best we know it). Common sense is legal. Religious hatred must not be given safe harbor. We must not allow hatred and ignorance to destroy us.
1
If in Trump’s America “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” it appears that a certain “fundamentalist/ evangelical christianity” is now a very close second.
1
The Court rulings that will be most ominous relate to schoolchildren. We see this in the form of religious indoctrination in ultra-Orthodox schools in Brooklyn and suburban counties, where almost no secular education are taught (and almost no American civic and cultural values). Depriving American children of the basics of American literature, history and civics threatens our democracy and our nation.
The Fratello v. Archdiocese case held that a LAY parochial school principal was a “minister” for civil law purposes, depriving her of her own civil rights under the guise of religious freedom. It is another example of a “weaponized” Free Exercise Clause—one that is increasingly used by religious fundamentalists.
Organized religion (Catholic, Protestant, Jew—all very much allied) seeks power for itself, but this is at the expense of the larger society and the basic American value that Church and State must be kept separated. The Establishment Clause prohibits the favoring of religion. The Founding Fathers recognized the threat that religious factions pose (The Federalist Papers discuss the potential evil of religious factions).
But religious belief has great emotional appeal. We must hope that the “religious conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court put emotion and pro-religion bias aside, and read the history of religious strife in the world, and the Federalist Papers.
1
I’ve forgotten, but I’ll bet Ms. Greenhouse remembers which long-gone Supreme Court justice said, “Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.”
Apparently that is no longer true, at least if the armswinger is a christian and the swinging is done in the name of religious freedom.
3
People are free to practice whatever kind of religion they want. Having access to my tax dollar to further their religious beliefs is what I object to. The Montana case is particularly troubling - basically they are saying the State is obligated to provide public money for religious education - this should be a clear violation of the Constitution. Most organized religious groups are being proven to be little more than tax dodging enterprises that feather their own nests - the Mormon's 100 billion stashed away, the Catholic Church's diverting money into the hands of Cardinals for their own private use, the "Prosperity Gospel" shills who life the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Give me a break. If people want to fund these groups then fine - but don't expect me to hand over any of my hard earned money to further their ridiculous religious tenets.
4
If your going to buy in to one kind of fairy tale and give it legitimacy, you're going to have to give all kinds of fairy tales the same legitimacy.
I find it hard to believe, no pun intended, people still buy into these myths and illogical mind think in the 21st century.
4
Simple solution: enjoin all religions to establish themselves as businesses, and to be treated as such. The charade of the Great White Father in the Heavens should be taxed and regulated like all entertainment conglomerates.
4
2020 and huge numbers of people still accept the existence of the supernatural!! Is there any hope for reason to prevail over ignorance?
3
“And in fact, I don’t really fault the judges — Richard Griffin, Jane Stranch and Bruce Donald — for a decision that strikes me as ridiculous. Christian Identity has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “a unique anti-Semitic and racist theology” that has held a position of “commanding influence” on the extremist right. What sensible person, or judge, would want to allow it to flourish inside a prison?”
Does the First Amendment apply only to religions we like or does it also protect religions we find abhorrent?
34
@Joe Borini it's not so clear-cut, black & white. We can expect, going forward many claims of "religion" masqurading what are actually personal biases. Racism, homophobia, anti-government lunacy or any number of biases will appear under the guise of "religion".
40
@Joe Borini
do we really have to support freedom for folks who wish to destroy tolerance and promote racist ideology? Methinks turning any virtue, even freedom, into an unqualified absolute lacks common sense.
26
@Joe Borini The people in question weren't prohibited from believing or practicing their religion. They were demanding a separate space that was not open to Jews or non-white people. The govmt is not obligated to provide a space for them that is not available to all.
37
If this Supreme Court sides with these white supremacists in allowing their racism as part of their "religion", it will have gutted the 14th Amendment.
I'm a native-born American citizen in my 60's. And what I find most striking is that we now actually have to say that others do not have the right to put our lives at risk because of their "religious beliefs". Many "religious citizens" have become that extreme. They believe that they have a right to use their religion as a blunt force instrument to harm other people.
These "religious" folks believe that they have a right to force women who have been raped to bear their rapist's baby. They believe they have a right to criminalize homosexuality. And now they're claiming that their "religion" entitles them to discriminate based on race.
These "Christians" believe that they are entitled to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. I grew up in an America where it was axiomatic that one could exercise his or her religious freedoms, so long as they did not harm others. Republicans and Democrats believed this. It was not a partisan issue. It was not a religious issue. But it is now.
This is the natural outgrowth of the toxicity of the Evangelical Right in this nation. Their excesses have enabled the most bigoted people to mistreat their fellow citizens, as an "exercise of their religion". The Evangelical Right is the biggest threat that this country faces. And the rest of us finally need to start fighting back.
6
Judge Alito: “It is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.” Well – who is to say it then? How about the adults in the room can clearly see that Christian Identity is “mistaken” by the fact that it is poses a threat to segments of society and thus to the common good.
1
@Michael Judge Alito is a coward. You don't have to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial, you just have to know and realize that their beliefs will bring harm to those of us who are not of their religious beliefs. Religion is not a them vs us proposition. Do not cause harm to your neighbor because his religious beliefs are different from yours. I think that was the whole reason the Founding Fathers gave us freedom of religion. Aren't we all believing in God, only one, whatever you call him, not a flesh and blood person whom you're elevating to some kind of divinity, that person being a specific hue whom you will recognize. Senseless for the Supreme Court of the United States to be so unthinking and prejudiced in their conclusions.
3
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Religious institutions should receive absolutely no special accommodations. They should pay taxes and should obey all the laws of the land.
10
@LAM Hallelujah!
2
I never understood any of the arguments here. We always choose and paid for our birth control. It had nothing to do with anyone else. Maybe we should return to that model.
4
A "religion" that denigrates "others" and says its adherents can't commune with their God in the presence of "others", is not a religion. It may have usurped some of the language and ritual of an actual religion, but it is, in fact, the antitheses of a religious faith. It is a hate group.
Hate groups, not being religions, are not entitled to protection under religious freedom laws.
Case closed.
172
@Katherine Katherine has spoken, everyone. Case closed
7
@Katherine How is your feeling about strict division of religion and government?
Should the court even be asked to render an opinion of a religious act, belief or existence?
1
@Katherine
Wow, nice quick theology lesson glad we got that cleared up.
2
I want freedom FROM religion. I don’t want any religion invading the public sphere, which should remain secular and humanistic. Why do religious people feel the need to constantly push their authoritarianism and magic-man myths, cults and beliefs in the rest of us?
54
Why? Because these people actually believe they are saving us from ourselves. The arrogance and ignorance of the religious right, shall not be undermined. I’m not just talking “Christian “ right, but any and all fundamentalist or orthodox practices. Following these paths denies gods greatest gift to humanity, the ability to use our choice and intellect to create our own paths in this world, hopefully in gods image, and gods path.
7
What about separation of church and state? Religious privilege or concession has no place in any government branch. Period. One can believe and preach whatever they wish but not with our tax dollars. Following your favorite God is optional, with your own money. Atheist are fed up with paying for affluent religious institutions that worship imaginary friends. Enough is enough.
197
@Zuzka In fact, can we please stop allowing religious organizations tax exemptions and stop providing text books and bus transportation to parochial schools? If you choose any private school, pay for it. Do not siphon tax dollars from public schools.
45
@Eileen
Yes! Let's have a powerful secularist movement to counter the powerful religious organizations that are pushing us towards establishment of religion (such as public funding of religious schools).
17
@Eileen
Well said!
1
Whenever I look up and gaze at the stars at night knowing that I'm in them and they're in me, I find that's more than enough to fill my "spiritual" tank. The various man made versions come up woefully short.
3
@Rep de Pan Beautifully said. And full of potential for our, no doubt, distant future.
It seems to me that it is often religious people who seek to impose norms on broader society, while in turn they wish to be exempted from other norms or obligations imposed by the State. Their desire to do so is motivated by their “beliefs” or their “religion.” Others must accept that if such people “believe” something, it must be true and worthy.
But anyone could argue that they cannot in good conscience obey a particular law, and that they should therefore be exempted because their religion forbids them from doing so. Of course, this path leads inevitably to anarchy and the breakdown of any meaningful society.
Let me conclude, then, by saying I do not believe in religiously motivated policies or laws. I hope you will grant me the same latitude you seek.
3
After I had studied my way out of religion into full-blown atheism, there was an epiphany that shocked me more than almost anything else. It was the realization that we in the 21st century are still giving credence to the philosophical ramblings of people who lived during the bronze and iron ages. Not only do we give them undue support, which many times they cannot justify, we allow them to make public policy based on I text that claims that the Earth was created in a seven day. And that God made the sun stand still in the sky. It would seem to me that the burden placed upon the government with regard to laws concerning religion should actually be reversed, requiring religion to provide the proof to substantiate its extraordinary claims. We can start with the story of Joshua and the sun standing still. Poor old Copernicus suffered for his scientific statement which was contrary to this scripture, but eventually even the monolithic Catholic church had to back down from unquestionable fact. I think we need to hold all religions to an exacting bar before they can claim governmental privilege and tax dollars.
34
@Kjensen Good idea!
2
For many people, this case boils down to "If an organization won't accept the government's new definition of marriage, then it shouldn't expect to partner with government." Think through the implications of this. There is a vast ecosystem of faith-based charitable organizations serving the needy, the most vulnerable people in our society. Government has long recognized that these organizations do essential work and deliver services better than the government could do on its own. Forcing a rift between the public sector and these faith-based organizations would mean depriving many, many needy people of help.
Anthony Kennedy, in his Obergefell decision, urged us to respect the views of those who couldn't get on board with the new definition of marriage. He at least could recognize that this was a big deal: for most of human history and across all the major faith traditions, marriage fundamentally is about bringing together male and female, fathers and mothers, for the sake of kinship and lineage. Many people here seem blind to what a huge disruption same-sex marriage represents. Of course there will be dissenters, given the long, deep human anthropology around marriage. If you really want to banish them all from civil society, at least be honest about the destruction that will follow.
3
@Noelle
Thank you. This is the most sensible comment in this entire thread. America is largely a live and let live country. Both the Obergefell and Masterpiece majority opinions were about live and let live.
The fact that so many Democrats refuse to see this is one of the major reasons we have and are likely to reelect President Trump.
1
I once tried to count the number of Christian denominations in the United States. I gave up in frustration at 'something over thirty thousand'. My biggest problem was defining 'denomination'. Does each one of these have special privileges not accorded to nonmembers?
The federal court system is now far beyond judicial interpretation and deep into originating legislation disguised as "opinions". Congress has failed at its role in this regard and left a void that courts filled.
The problem is that judges are not elected. They are appointed for life. Are we headed toward the Iranian model, with a superior unelected clerical/judicial an an inferior democratically elected government?
13
Oh boy! If you and yours could just vote in all the judges, we’d have tyranny of the majority on steroids! Our government and judicial system aren’t supposed to run like Chipotle. Impassioned judges are supposed to apply the law and constitution, not just what you want.
I often wonder about the doctors whose strong moral beliefs require them to refer patients for abortion or at least inform them. Some moral beliefs are more equal than others.
1
My first legal mentor often referred to a phrase when critiquing my legal arguments. He loved to assert that my argument was “a distinction without a difference.”
Sadly to compare the Philadelphia Dept. of a Human Services v. C.S. S. to the Montana Espinoza case is to make an argument of similarity with a significant distinction. It is saying that a right to a $150 tax credit is the equivalent of a child’s right to be placed with a qualified, loving family, and the hopeful family’s right to provide such care. We know the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are (the equivalent of) people; but will they rule that the well being of a child is the equivalent of $150?
9
The good news is that as organized religion becomes ever more rigidly intolerant and as that intolerance is blessed (if you will) by five men (hhm, right, they are all men) in black robes, more and more citizens will become "nones" and, eventually, organized religions will wither on the vine. This citizen, however, also hopes that a new, refreshing spirituality will blossom and I would I would point to the Sermon on the Mount as a good place to start.
19
This article's analysis of RLUIPA and the appellate court's decision is severely lacking and misleading to readers. It gives readers the clear--but false--takeaway that the Sixth Circuit held that public safety is not relevant when it comes to a prisoner's exercise of his or her religion. That is untrue, and is likely to rile up readers who did not read the opinion like the author must have.
The article fails to set out the three steps of analyzing RLUIPA. It is in the third step where the government's interest in safety is weighed against the burden on the religious exercise of the prisoner. On that score, the appellate court ruled that it did not have enough evidence and remanded for further evidence.
It was at step two, determining whether the prisoner's exercise of religion had been substantially burdened, that the Sixth Circuit ruled that the prison's interest in safety is not relevant. Your expression of dismay ("Say what?") at the appellate court's decision is unfounded.
5
@Michael
Counselor, I fail to understand, after your restating "step two", why you find the author's dismay unfounded. Does not a ..ahem.. "religion" of white supremacy inside a multiracial prison at least arguably raise the issue of safety?
If not, why not?
And if its not relevant under legal tests, why isn't it relevant?
What if a "religion" made it a sacrament to shoot minorities? And yes, in the present US, I think such is conceivable.
@Jerseytime
As I stated above, public safety is weighed in step 3 (along with other compelling government interests). The Sixth Circuit sent the case back down to the lower court for more evidence for step 3 because the lower court had not gathered the necessary evidence and did not conduct that weighing.
Many predicted after Hobby Lobby that the elevation of "religion" above all public policy would lead to the appearance of policy positions masquerading as "religions".
Some jokingly invented "The Most Apostolic Church of Denying Climate Change" or "The First Church of Not Paying Taxes".
The case in the article is the link between Hobby and the above mentioned "silly" examples. Christian Identity theology is real and although not widespread, is a real religion. Must the government treat a religion that enshrines racial/religious hatred in its theology the same way it treats other religions? Tough question. I'm sure some will argue that Islam is such a religion (I won't).
Scary stuff, as the article notes.
9
An autocratic, authoritarian theocracy -which is where America is headed under the current administration and it's judicial appointees- will, by its inevitable nature, become a religious hate group. Join and participate or die.
7
Twenty or so denominations in the prison, and one sect is targetted? I'm not a white supremicist, but what is the criteria in the prison for allowing any particular religion or sect to exist? Would they deny a Wahabbi form of Islam? How about the Church of the Great Spaghetti Monster? At the end of the day, do the prisoners abide by prison rules, or don't they? If you deny this group in prison, do you deny those outside prison walls also?
2
@Steve
Reality is much messier than you suggest.
Everyone at this paper could re-learn to right position statements and topic sentences. I no longer have time to read the paper because it is not written to make it easy to read. I'm an academic and I no longer have time. If you want to draw readers in, stop giving us cryptograms at the beginning of articles and start respecting our time.
3
You comment weren't right about the Times riting not being too good.
@MAmom2
When did you start reading the Times? Yesterday?
There is nothing new about how their articles are organized.
And besides, this is an opinion piece.
1
Look back on the rich history of Christian restraint in its handling of power...I'll wait...
That's correct, there is no such thing: the evangelical beliefs of many Christian adherents have resulted in countless authoritarian impositions of their beliefs upon others, often with an accompanying violent streak.
The important thing to realize is that evangelicals don't believe in personal freedom as secular folks would have it, where as long as what I do is legal & no harm to you, then that's just fine: they believe that their God has told them that one is only "free" if the Bible's laws have been imposed; anyone who disagrees is an apostate who doesn't really matter anyways, being consigned to hellfire, and all that mess.
So, to do "God's will," it is perfectly reasonable for a good, thinking Christian to believe that to "practice" their faith, they should be able to dictate to you what yours should be.
12
“The court said the district judge, Phillip Green, had misapplied the law by weighing the prison’s interest in safety as part of his analysis of whether the prison was placing an improper burden on the men’s exercise of their chosen religion.” This is false. The court ruled that, in the three step legal test, the judge considered the prison’s interest in safety at the wrong step (step 2 instead of 3). Obviously the prison’s interest in safety comes into play. It is simply wrong to say the appeals court rejected any consideration of safety. Come on, NYT, you can do better than this.
4
These children need loving homes! As an adoptive parent and long-time Board member of an adoption support group in my area, I must ask:
If they are Catholic Social Services, are they placing any children with non-Catholic couples or single parents? Are any of their 'acceptable' parents sinners? Can you be a sinner and still be Catholic in the eyes of CSS? Could gay couples ever be forgiven like other sinners? What about birth control users?
Is the desired exemption from the law here really about religious freedom or just the right to be bigoted?
20
Maybe it's time for the court to define what a religion is deserving the privileges of the 1st Amendment. A one man fanatic as in the Denver cake case should never have gotten to the Supreme Court.
1
Perhaps there needs to exist some kind of test to be applied before the label 'religion' can be applied? A couple of nuts in prison making arbitrary 'religious' claims based on what exactly, should be summarily dismissed.
Yeshua (aka Jesus) is completely missing from the archeological record. All we have is 4 anonymous authors (Mark?/Anon1, Matthew?/Anon2, Luke?/Anon3, John?/Anon4) writing decades after the alleged events. Believe this stuff if you must. Just keep in mind that the USA is a secular country with a godless constitution.
5
The Current Republican Party exists to support the beliefs of men like these. “Christian Identity” is where many white conservative Christians are hoping things can head. Seems like Jesus wouldn’t approve, but the teachings of Christ are the last things such people really care about.
8
Evangelicals are unsurprisingly ignorant of their own history, it was their forebears escaping state churches in Europe that demanded a separation between church and state. Personally I think nothing would put a damper on their enthusiasm as fast as actually establishing a state religion, take a good look at the C of E, we at least have the Queen as the head of the church, imagine it with Donald Trump at the helm it would be hilarious and absolute proof of God's non-existence if he didn't smite Trump and his followers with a plague or ten.
7
@John Wallis
Amen!
1
I see many comments disagreeing with the author which spring from their personal definition of morality as defined by their own form of superstition, in this case of Christianity. Good law is based on ethics, eg it is wrong to steal from someone or punch them in the face. Laws based on morality that tell me who I can have sex with or how are a violation of a pluralistic society.
6
The sorry culmination of years of wrangling the Constitution over to the religious leaders that rob their flocks daily.
These guys are looking for the big dollar - that's the Fed dollar.
Shameless and blasphemous.
3
Religion: The enemy of Reason
5
What is truth?
1
Original intent anyone? Religion in 1776 was Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and probably a few others. Even our enlightened founders seemed wrongly not to consider the Native religions of natives anywhere to be a "real" religion.
That said they surely did not intend for people to be able to make up religions to give themselves advantages or to overcome the law so they could impose themselves on others.
Just to be clear insurance didn't used to be broken down into "we cover this but not that" with the kind of specificity necessary to opt out of paying for specific drugs freely available to all on the market. That is until reagan et al started trying to use the argument that paying for healthcare that included birth control was somehow religious. IDK the exact way it was done but some accommodating republican in an insurance company created the fake break down. Premiums are calculated based on algorithms that consider large groups. It is literally impossible to remove birth control from the premium price. They just decide to not provide something they are still in fact paying for. The whole thing is a sham. Thus it never gets past the sincerity test.
Pretty much all of these religious contestations are of the same ilk. Maybe we should legally define religion so that it is clear and less prone to these manipulations? How do we overcome those who invent religious beliefs for political ends.
8
We are Canada's largest province and we were a traditional conservative society. Everywhere I went my brother Jesus was hanging on the walls.and his name was invoked at every occasion.
Until the late 1950s the authorities could confiscate sacred spaces and gathering places that did conform to the Catholic Churches desires and never could if you were a Jehovah's Witness , Secular Humanist or Jewish Intellectual. We had Catholic hospitals, Protestant hospitals and Jewish hospitals sometimes a block apart. Religion made sure we were separate and unequal.
Today we are united by the core beliefs that the world is 4.5 billion years old, the is no evidence that any supernatural event and evolution is omnipresent and change is perpetual.
We fear religion , we know what it did to our women, our neighbours, our friends and our society and we fear as Voltaire said; Those that make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Our schools were sectarian and economically segregated according to language and social status. most of us fear the power of ignorance.
Montreal's public intellectual Irving Layton wrote a book of poetry I remember as a best seller for My Brother Jesus. Layton wrote; "What power ignorance that make your possessors seem so strong."
This is not a discussion for narrow minded lawyers and vacuous political ideologues this is a job for philosophers and for us as citizens to decide. Where does the right to personal beliefs end and the rights of society begin?
6
@Montreal Moe
Quebec's Bill 21 can be seen as a PDF or you can see what is entailed in Wikipedia's description at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_ban_on_religious_symbols.
Both sides present compelling arguments with world renowned ethical Philosopher Charles Taylor and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau having been against the bill and and Quebec 's last two governments and most of our population supporting the bill.
After many years of debate I am still on the fence despite it being a subject of interest for almost all of my 72 years.
Is there a line in the sand where freedom of religion ends and freedom from religion begins?
My name brings back memories of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.
2
This is all about the right wing evangelical movement to embed its constrictive Christian social views as the law of the land.
These people want to be able to stop equal protections under the law to isolate LGBTQ citizens by enabling discrimination based upon “religious belief.” That is, evangelical, Christian beliefs no matter how discriminatory.
It violates basic principles of the Constitution, but no matter. The Supreme Court majority is prepared to completely uproot 250 years of Constitutional interpretations upholding equality under the law.
This is the scourge of Trump and his cowardly enablers.
8
This brings to mind the old argument that the government did not have the right to take away a man’s freedom to enslave other men.
3
It would seem to me that the concept of 'democracy', for its success, requires one essential assumption and that is rationality on the part of its members. Something that is conspicuously lacking in our species - probably in any species, if it's to succeed as a species. We apparently require 'religions' be they Christian, Muslim, Judaism (the Abrahamic group) or Hindu, Buddhism etc.. Or the quasi-religions, communism, capitalism, fascism (the corporate religion), socialism etc.. You could probably fit Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy in there somewhere. The law, at least ours, presumes to address the resulting cacophony. Futile.
33
“It may fairly be said,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.”
Why isn't this the basis for throwing out all the limitations put on abortion?
5
Linda Greenhouse is analyzing issues about which various groups feel very strongly. As we can see from the differing comments, some view the issues from an ideological side, such as "liberal or conservative" democracy.
If the rulers were to embrace one ideology, stepping on the rest of society, would the rest of society gullibly acquiesce pretending that an oppressive government is legitimate?
The ideologues might not care, but the rulers' interests are based on maintaining power over other people.
Some ideologues might not enjoy the constitutional or legal minutiae that's Greenhouse's wheelhouse, but we should note that, as they say, the law isn't a valid substitute for justice.
2
It's seems incongruous to me that a corporation, a legal person in its own right (by law anyway), is a separate and distinct entity from its ownership in matters of liability (the corporate veil) but, somehow becomes an extension of its owners religious/political views when the owners object to being subject to a law of general applicability.
17
@RobtPost After all, what faith can a corporation have if it is separate and distinct from its owners?
4
There are thousands of foster children in Philadelphia who need homes and many foster parents looking to adopt these children. Catholic Social Services has been operating for over a century and never had any problems placing children in loving homes until recently. You cannot ask them to compromise their values on marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel this is the proper environment in which children should be raised. It is their right to hold these beliefs.
The city of Philadelphia is doing an injustice to not only these deserving children but also to these loving couples willing to give a home to children in need. I applaud this Catholic agency for standing behind their principles. I wish more agencies would follow suit. I hope the Supreme Court votes in favor of the Catholic Social Services. We need this valuable and important organization to continue in this endeavor as adoptive services which is needed now more than ever. The Supreme Court will hopefully do the right thing for these children.
5
@KMW So, can other social services agencies refuse to place children in foster homes with Catholic parents because those agencies as a religious matter object to papism ? ...
The short answer is yes ... just Google "South Carolina adoption discrimination" ...
Hope you're happy with that ... Especially considering the long history of anti-Catholic prejudice in this country ...
2
@KMW It's sad that the left would rather let children suffer then let a long functioning organization continue its work simply because they hold a different view.
Maybe the tolerant left really isn't that tolerant.
2
@KMW
You are apparently more concerned with Catholic Social Services than with the well-being of children in need of care.
The Supreme Court will "do the right thing for this children" by making sure that they are able to be placed with people who are devoted to their care, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.
Prior to Emancipation and the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, what are now considered mainstream Christian sects devoted considerable resources to mining Christian scriptures to justify human bondage. Did that make them "hate" groups worthy of censure or other restrictions by the Federal government? Who decides what is a "legitimate" religion or a "sincerely held" religious belief? I was once a practicing lawyer and began my studies of Constitutional issues as an undergraduate government major. For even longer I've been an agnostic. I just can't accept the idea that the government should decide these questions that put it in the position of granting favors to one religion or set of beliefs and not to others. One other point. Let's be explicit. The religious majority on the Court is composed of very right wing Roman Catholics, the religion into which I was initiated as a child.
11
@Ollie Bland
Well, if you get your wish, we will soon see "sincerely held religious beliefs" in religions that regard taxes as the work of the devil and environmental regulation as a plague upon the land. In the past, many Christian churches theologically thought of Jews as "Christ killers", which justified treating them badly. What if that peculiar tenet reappeared?
Be careful what you wish for. As an attorney, I'm sure you're aware of the "slippery slope".
@Jerseytime
Former attorney, please. I would hope that the slope you foresee will end in eliminating all special treatment for "religions" whatever their ilk. If the backlash doesn't come soon there's no hope for us ever having a truly free society.
The Philadelphia case is more complex than Ms. Greenhouse argues. Even without its law banning discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to adopt, the City was arguably justified in refusing to contract with a Catholic-affiliated agency that wouldn't deal with such couples. At the same time, the Catholic Church is not a fringe religion, let alone a mere baker or florist. Catholic doctrine, as recently confirmed by the Pope, does not recognize same-sex couples. A Catholic agency should not be expected to act in contravention of its faith.
9
@Richard They should if they want Federal funding and to work with Federal agencies, no? Just because it's not a fringe religion does not make it less onerous legally and practically, which is what Scalia's quote highlights. There is no distinction in the law between fringe and mainstream religious views, even if our fears in these cases stems from such distinctions. You can't give any religion special treatment without opening the country's legal system up to fringe doctrines.
15
@Richard Then very simply a catholic agency has absolutely no business providing what amounts to government services. I am an Atheist and I absolutely object to any of my or any others tax dollars going to subsidize any group who thinks that their mythology provides them cover to be racists, bigots, and to discriminate against human beings for any reason. Its not complex it is very plainly written out in the constitution and Jefferson very clearly explained his intent in other written works; Government and religion are to remain separated. No religious organization of any type should be involved in any governmental activity. Period!
5
@Richard
I don’t even recognize the Catholicism practiced by the white, conservative SCOTUS (in)justices and Clarence Thomas. They don’t love their neighbors as themselves and they worship male, patriarchal hierarchies, not the teachings of Jesus Christ. These are the kinds of men who enabled, supported and protected the Catholic priests who sexually abused women and children for decades; who created the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland and the mass graves of women and children at Donnybrook.
In my view, the SCOTUS conservatives are already impeachable. The wrong decision on this case would seal the deal.
5
It's kind of interesting that liberals are quite happy to demand rights for all kinds of minority and marginalized groups: free health care for undocumented immigrants, reparations and "safe spaces" for blacks, free abortion for those who can't afford it, affirmative action for admissions to elite colleges, gay marriage, free transitioning in the military, no cooperation with ICE and no borders.
But when it comes to the religious, the majority seems quite ready to deny them their ability to decide what their religion is. I am not in favor of white separatism, but the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect minority interests.
It seems Ms. Greenhouse and most commenters here are ready to throw that out.
6
@G
A. Who has said "no borders?"
B. Religions are (pretty much) free to do what they wish, privately. The controversy comes when they accept government money (or are exempted from government taxes/fees), enter into proxy government contracts, operate on public grounds, etc.
27
@G No, I and the others want you to keep your religion to yourself and in your house or church. Very simply we will not allow your belief in a mythical deity to effect our lives or lifestyles. You are welcome to your moldy old book of myths but I do not believe not subscribe to them. We will also not allow you to impose them on us. So you need to come to terms that your wishes and desires are your own, hold no special place in society, and are not allowed to effects other's lives, liberties and their pursuit of happiness.
3
@G Not to worry, the Catholic school in my town kicked out a 6 year old when they found out her parents were lesbians, so that old-time religious "freedom" still exists.
6
In the Philadelphia adoption case, CSS won't place kids with unmarried couples and they don't recognize same sex marriage.
This leaves the Court the option of ruling narrowly on marriage status without facing the question of religious freedom.
But other cases deal with the definition of discrimination because of sex. That same question will affect the Equal Rights Amendment.
What does "sex' mean? What does equal protection mean?
The Court is slippery enough to avoid a resolution.
3
This is the same scenario as the civil rights era. Some people wanted to engage in public commerce but not serve some citizens on the basis of skin color.
35
@Gareth Harris
No, no, no --> Government created and enforced the segregation, so even if you wanted to served African- Americans we were prevented from doing so.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” Thomas Jefferson. While Trump and his minions continue to threaten our democracy, those on the Court who cling to their belief in originalism do even more harm. There is so much outrage in our country right now, that few have noted the creeping encroachment of religious zealotry and how it's having an impact on how we live our day to day lives. Evangelicals have embraced this corrupt president because in his attempt to cling to power he has pushed the right buttons to keep the far right in his pocket, packing the court with unqualified lackeys who do his bidding so he can win re-election and complete the destruction of our democracy. I believe in the right of a woman to choose or not to choose to have an abortion, but it I do not possess the arrogance that demands that all citizens adhere to my religious beliefs. We are in rough waters right now. Roberts must step up and end this madness, including calling out Trump for his outrageous demand that Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves from Trump cases. If we lose the Court, we lose America.
28
When I worked with a residents association in Indianapolis there was a case a where a group claimed that because they held religious services in their house they were exempt from paying property tax. Fortunately there was a solution as the house was not properly zoned as church, and an attempt to rezone the house was denied.
8
When it comes to religious exemptions to non-discrimination laws, it seems that the solution is for the claimed exemption, to be allowable, must be publicly proclaimed. For Hobby Lobby, for instance, to claim a "religious freedom" exemption to the ACA provisions under the law, it should be obligated to prominently display the portions of laws it is claiming exemption to in all its public speech. Signs, websites, recruitment and employment docs, all publicity. So everyone would know that they refuse to provide health plans that include birth control. Everyone includes prospective employees, customers, investors and companies which sell services and products to them... Then the choice would actually be a free one. They would have to compete with similar companies that do not discriminate. No ordinary law abiding couple would be humiliated by going to the wrong bakery to order a wedding cake. No prospective foster or adoptive parents would inadvertently waste time on agencies they know would discriminate against them. Maybe only by allowing the extreme tribalism of the current moment to reach its ultimate inevitable absurdity will we rediscover that the world needs all of us, and that diversity enriches everyone's life. Diversity entails more than tolerance. It entails respect and acceptance of important differences.
26
All of this calls to mind the Antinomian controversy of the 1630s, in which the Massachusetts Bay Colony religious authorities tried to suppress Anne Hutchinson. The entire story is complicated, but the salient feature is that she claimed religious authority based on her own religious insights and quasi-mystical experiences. She had numerous followers, male and female, and she eventually was banished—NYT readers are right if they suspect there is a connection between her and the Hutchinson River Parkway—for her challenge to the religious-political establishment of the day.
Linda Greenhouse as always does a great job of drawing out the important underlying legal and cultural issues. Thanks for a great column!
13
All freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights face limitations on their exercise, including the liberty to follow one's conscience in religious matters. We don't permit the practice of human sacrifice because of the consequences for the victims of such a religious ritual.
By the same token, the SC erred in its Hobby Lobby decision when it ignored the interests of employees in favor of the beliefs of business owners who sought to deny contraceptive coverage in their health insurance policies. The court treated these policies as a gift from the employers to their workers, whereas in fact this "fringe benefit" formed part of the employees' pay, substituting for a portion of their wages. In effect, the court authorized the company to dictate how its employees would spend part of their pay.
A definition of religious freedom which enables one group to practice their beliefs at the expense of the liberty of other people, perhaps including the entire society, elevates the importance of sectarian doctrines above all other values, a dangerous idea in a pluralistic society.
53
@James Lee This says it all: "In effect, the court authorized the company to dictate how its employees would spend part of their pay."
From an atheist, member of the last unprotected minority.
3
@James Lee
Some good points but people are not forced to work at Hobby Lobby. They can make different choices.
@Norville T. Johnston
Hobby lobby is not a church nor religion, it is a business. The SC should not have allowed it to deny contraceptive coverage to its employees based on the religious beliefs of its owners.
Were these owners Islamic Fundamentalists and mandated all female employees wear hijabs, would you agree??
Of course the SC is also the organization that wrote Dredd Scott and made other decisions supporting slavery for generations before the Civil War so its ability to be blatantly wrong is not surprising.
Sad.
1
There are two views that are at odds. There are those who believe the court is in place to make sure we are actually following the laws established by Congress or other entities and making sure they align with the Constitution. The other is that the role of the court is much more expansive, and should actually be creating its own law. This second position means that a very small number of people, perhaps as few as five, who are not elected and hold lifetime positions, can make the law as they see fit. I prefer the former view. If you do not like the law, change the law, don't ask an elite few to impose their views.
13
I understand what the Sixth Circuit is saying. The safety of the prison isn't relevant in the determination about religious freedom. In other words, the next ruling should come to the exact same conclusion while simply omitting the word "safety" from the decision.
At the same time, we're talking about prisoners. Prisoners are not entitled to the same rights as normal US citizens. Most incarcerated felons are not allowed to vote for example. I would politely suggest the religious preferences of an incarcerated felon are therefore equally subservient to the functional operation of the prison. One or the other. All prisoners can vote or prisoners don't get to choose their place of worship. Which is it?
Justice Scalia was more right than he knew. Taken to the extreme, you would simply create a religion that objects to incarceration at all. Federal and state law ceases to function. Anarchy as state sanctioned theology is no basis for governance. By definition, conservative justices should see the wisdom in rejecting overly zealous claims to religious liberty. I guarantee or opponents will weaponize the same rulings in response.
I can imagine a faith mandating the use of birth control until a woman decides to conceive. The Lord hath Spoketh. You're violating my religious right to receive birth control through insurance. The following will far outnumber Christian Identity. What say you now Hobby Lobby?
4
As an atheist I would like to get a tax exemption for not consuming the legal systems resources
31
@F R No one in the world is more impressed with themselves than atheists. I'd like to add to that now by giving you a virtual pat on the back. Great job, F R. Your knowledge and wisdom is a benefit to the world. In fact, I am even inclined to think that the atheist is an advanced species.
1
This court, and the right, will allow anything that has “ christian “ appended to it.
Change that to Muslim, well , that’s different.
18
Thank you, that really hits the nail on the head, none of this is really about “religion “ it’s about power, white Christian,( read, evangelical),power. What would Jefferson think.
1
Feels a bit tricky to use a prison case of extremist racists and antisemites to shed light on constitutionally protected religious freedom. It’s kind of saying you can’t protect the second amendment if we have background checks and reasonable restrictions on assault weapons. Fact is that mainstream religions have beliefs that do—and always have—conflicted with social currents. I’m not sure how the government has authority to force or heavily coerce religious institutions or people to compromise their beliefs, even if it hurts other people’s feelings.
4
I guess we can't expect our laws to save us from ourselves.
1
"Free exercise" of religion is strictly voluntary and cannot be lawfully coerced, mandated, or compelled. Post Roe v. Wade abortion politics has installed justices who are profoundly stupid. The whole US court system now needs an overhaul from the top on down.
3
What we need is freedom from religion. There should be no religious exemptions to the laws and justice when those exemptions impact other individuals.
In the prison case, would they allow the LEGAL Native American religious practices where taking peyote is part of the ritual? Or will they only allow fringe "religions" based on hate, intolerance, white supremacy and violence.
When is it a religion and when is it a cult dangerous to our society.
15
Remember that a religion is just a cult that has gone mainstream.
The problem is there is no definition. My religion is whatever I say it is.
6
This is a compelling argument. I would have liked a few more links to court decisions, but I agree with the argument against allowing fringe religious groups a lawful right to dictate public policy.
I am not a big fan of any group that dictates public policy based on their beliefs, either on the right or the left. If I prefer to see a child adopted by a man and a women, so be it. But how another chooses to live his or her life is none of my business.
I can only hope the justices on the Supreme Court understand this. We need four liberal justices, and four conservative justices on that court. Then, a sensible Chief Justice can weight all the facts before he or she rules on my life.
Which reminds me: why should I have to make a decision between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump?
The bottom line, I guess, is that the federal government should recognize the right of any citizen to believe what he or she wants to believe, as long as their beliefs don't pose a threat to the beliefs of others. They can call it "religious" or not. That said, this also argues for the abolishment of tax exemptions or other forms of legal favoritism to any and all religious organizations. Strengthening the constitutional separation of church and state should be the only sacred element in the whole matter.
12
@Charles Michener: The subsidies given these charlatans legitimize all liars and con artists.
"While they observed several Jewish holidays, including Passover and Yom Kippur"
I remember reading elsewhere that a lot of inmates claim to be Jewish because Kosher meals in prison are better than the general meals.
Austin Ouellette,
We all pay taxes in which we do not agree. I do not want to pay taxes that go towards Planned Parenthood because they perform abortions. I am against abortion. The argument that this tax funded organization does not use the tax money to pay for abortions is insignificant. They still get money from the government and should not get one penny while they kill the unborn.
1
Any religious group or political group will have
views that may go against the mainstream.
The question is does the government have a right to
force those groups to fully conform to any and all laws.
What do the phrases:
"Free Expression of Religion and Freedom of Speech"
mean to you ?
What if the parent(s) of the child being given up for adoption
specify what sort of people she/they do not want their child to
adopted by ?
As for the Bakery/Floral Shop cases - would anyone expect
an African American Baker or Jewish owner of a Floral shop
to make a wedding cake or floral arrangement for a
Neo-Nazi wedding ?
Part of the problem with relying on the Courts to support
you political views, in the original sense of politics, is that
they are not designed or equipped to carve out exceptions
to the laws.
A city want to create a law against fences/walls that are too
massive. They don't want to say no one can build a fence
and they don't want to say anyone can build a 20 foot high
stone wall around their property. So you have public hearings and the city council listens and tried to come to compromise.
Courts are not good at compromising.
The US of A used to be good at compromising.
We are a diverse peoples and as such we would do well
to respect the rights of minorities in the positive sense
that no is forced to go against their beliefs - be they due to
private reasons, religious reasons, idealistic reason.
There are many bakers and florists to choose from.
2
@John Brown ,
Really, not good at exceptions? Again take a good look at Federal Indian case law and you will find a court system capable of carving out exceptions right and left.
The entire history of the case law is the US courts finding ways to make an exception in the case of "Indians".
My favorite was crime on reservation because the criminal could not vote for leaders on the reservation he could not be prosecuted there. Even though international law allowed foreign Nationals to be prosecuted here, where they could not vote or become citizens, Indian Country got an exception leading to over a hundred years of crimes against tribal populations without remedy. An exception was applied just fine.
Don't be fooled. The courts have never been consistent. They apply their rules Willy nilly. Because in the example above many natives weren't citizens and could not vote but if they were off the reservation accused of a crime the US had no problem with the local government arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning them.
But a white man rapes murders an Indian women. He walks because the US Marshals office can't be bothered.
Equal Protection is a lie white people tell themselves. Always has been.
This country's legal understanding of religion is finally untenable and the problems this and other cases pose point to the deep conceptual flaws of the intellectual frameworks that produced it--ahistorical, mechanistic, reductionistic thinking divorced from any consideration of history or contingency. (In short, the shortcomings of legal thinking in general, and lawyers who do legal thinking with a feeling of power and legitimacy they think the law affords their thinking.) The flaws have not proved fatal only because they have not been pushed. This disgusting and morally repulsive group represents only one test; there are potentially many others far more crippling to its flawed intellectual assumptions and framework.
2
The two individuals were deprived of liberty by due process of law.
The answer is simple. The SCOTUS should allow Agnosticism and Atheism to operate tax-free no matter what the flyover Southern states think, and at the same time take Scalia's portrait off any public building wall.
5
Ms Greenhouse's column is revealing in several ways. First the scare quotes around the word "sincere" in describing religious beliefs as if such a thing could not exist without disingenuous or cynical motives. And it always is noteworthy to see the most extreme instances of the exercise of a right being used to characterize it more generally. Freedom of speech has its excesses, particularly on social media: should that be used to diminish the free speech rights of people more generally? Perhaps this is a poorly chosen analogy knowing that many on the left argue that it does. Seriously.
What Ms Greenhouse appears find disturbing ("frightening" in her words) is notion that some people choose to lead lives that are not fully subordinated to government dictates. Admittedly there is a threshold in adjudicating where religious freedom rights are outweighed by other imperatives, but this is the most anodyne of statements as it applies to every right. I am hopeful that the courts will strike the balance in a reasonable way, which does not mean that religious rights must yield to the state every time.
Why can’t we have freedom of religious exercise -as long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights or involve discrimination against another group?
6
Because the interpretation for the law is being weaponized. We can't stop people from abusing their power. It has to be a proactive thing.
3
Because my religious freedom isn’t defined by your right eg to birth control or same sex marriage. In most cases, the customer or employee has options and choices beyond that situation. The religious people do not. It’s literally a clash of freedoms, so no easy answer. But I think if a business or institution can somehow establish their religious disposition, then we can’t force them to do something they believe is wrong. Commerce and societal values are more open and liberal, with more choices. Yeah USA! But, neither can we—or should we—legally force religion to simply comply.
1
The new majority of this Court seemingly has five priorities...to interpret the Constitution and laws in whatever ways helps corporations, the wealthy, men over women, extremist bullying so-called Christians, and the proliferation of guns. Basically the opposite "values" of the majority of Americans that's growing every year. Oh yeah,,pretty much the opposite of the teachings of Jesus too.
85
@Cowboy Marine
Jesus has just been used for a bait and switch scheme.
Trump, for example, could not care less about Jesus or religion, he used religion to get where he's at. Same with Barr. Same with all those ministers laying their hands on Trump.
5
Hate it when Justice Scalia gets invoked as the voice of clarity. Frightening when he suddenly sounds reasonable.
If I recall correctly, Employment Division v. Smith allows the state to apply neutral, generally applicable laws that happen to forbid indigenous groups from practicing their sincerely held beliefs?
What a surprise that the Court seems to change its tune when it's Christians who want to discriminate against gays/take public funds for religious educational institutions, not indigenous people ingesting peyote as part of their core religious practices...
As an actual religious minority, it's always amusing to see Christians and Catholics circle the wagons, pretending like their centuries old religious hegemony is under threat. They'll never know what it's like to actually have their rights beholden to an indifferent majority...
39
@Myles: The laws of this land empower the worst among us to demean other people in the name of God.
4
So, let's see, if a Sikh were to be in prison, he gets to carry his dagger?
36
Please, whichever Dem wins the Presidential election (fingers crossed), realize that it is indeed time to "pack the court" if we Dems win the Senate, too. Democracies die, and the current Supreme Court majority would love nothing more than to establish a theocracy. We better act to remedy this situation before we can't.
14
If anyone ever wondered what it's like to live in a country run by religion, they're about to find out.
I did two tours in Afghanistan. I am not best pleased to come home and find that the American equivalent of the Taliban are now running the GOP.
153
As a Pastafarian I am excited by the promise of complete freedom. After all it’s my faith, my religion and my choice to do whatever I want, when ever and wherever.... Right? Of course not. This is only an attempt by “Fake Christians” to subvert the basic premise and foundation of the USA, separation of church and state... these people know no bounds and have no moral right to push their dogma, and yet they continue to... ughh
31
Be happy you’re in a place these things can even be argued. The political and emotional comments on this article suggests a general lack of appreciation of what the founding fathers have given us.
2
@Observer
Pastafarian? I'm all for it as long as it doesn't conflict with my belief in wasabism!
2
I have absolutely no regard for Christian Identity - they are a vile antisemitic sect whose main theological tenet is that Jews are not human beings. But if the authorities are empowered to make theological decisions, what about other religions? Radical Islam flourishes in prisons. It is a well-known fact that most terrorists, at least in Europe, have been radicalized during incarceration (some of them even converted to Islam in jail). If you want to prevent development of radical religious ideologies in prison, all religious services should be monitored and only mainstream centrist denominations and clerics allowed. And if you don’t want governmental oversight of religion, then I don’t see how you can object to Christian Identity but not to radical Islam.
3
If the law recognizes the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legal religion, why not Christian Identity?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster religion was founded as a satirical group dedicated to showing the ridiculousness of organized religion. It was never a serious organization which believed in a divinity or used true spiritual guidance. Its intent was to make a mockery of religion in general. And the law recognized it as a legal entity with the status of a "religion" anyway.
Christian Identify is hardly a serious organization dedicated to a belief in a divine spirit. It is, instead, a group of demented people dedicated to spreading hate and bigotry, and the disenfranchisement of religions it cannot tolerate. It is a sham organization.
It is different than the Spaghetti Monsters because it promulgates actions which are existentially and physically dangerous to others, especially minorities and Jews. It is a close cousin to the Aryan Brotherhood, which is common in prisons and is known for its racist violence.
There is already the limitation on first amendment rights which say a person cannot yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium because of the danger the action would present to the people there. The same context applies to Christian Identity. There can be no way to justify a hate mongering group like them, even in prison. They are not a religion in any sense. They are a vile group of bigots whose only goal is to spread their violent, discriminatory propaganda,.
18
@Max Dither Who are you to question my sincerely held belief in His Noodliness? And yet you call my religion a "religion"...... satire noted!
However you can't have it both ways, you let one religion in, you can't in fairness judge others because you simply don't like it ! Your very last sentence can be used to describe a lot of modern religion, mainstreams included.
2
@Khataan I wasn't making the point that we should keep some religions out because we don't like them. I was saying that religious organizations are based on first amendment rights, and those have limits. If an organization actively proselytizes violence against others as one of its religious tenets, then it is not protected free speech under our Constitution, and would not have a basis for support in any government supported institution, even prison.
3
@Max Dither Fully agree! We really need a satire emoji.
But again I am one that can find few redeeming qualities in any religion.
Thanks for the discussion.
The Supreme Court of the United States stands at the pinnacle of the least democratic branch of our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states.
While about 50% of Americans are Protestant and 23% are Catholic and 2% are Jewish, six of the Supreme Court of the United States justices are Catholic and three are Jewish.
When the patriarch Abram of Ur, Sumer aka modern Iraq claimed that his god commanded him to invade and occupy the lands of others and to kill, wound, displace and make refugees of the local men, women and children his Christian and Muslim ethnic sectarian heirs found and followed their own prophets and scriptures that justified crusades and jihads in the name of Abraham and their mutual ' God'.
4
@Blackmamba This lopsided distribution is what happens when appointments are made on merit and not demographics -- something that we should strive to apply everywhere.
3
Not true. Gorsuch is Protestant.
1
@George W
Law is not fair nor just nor moral nor objective.
Black African American men, women and children were enslavement and separate and unequal while black African was as lawful as the colonization and conquest of brown Indigenous men, women and children.
The only 'merit' that Supreme Court Justices have to have is being nominated by a President and winning a majority of the advice and consent of a Senate where every state has two from a half million people in Wyoming to 39.5 Californians.
Robert Bork and Merrick Garland had a lot more legal acumen, experience and merit than Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh
2
MI also recognizes at least one other expressly racist religion: the Nation of Islam. While it would, perhaps, satisfy many of us if “religions” which expressly consider race relevant were, if not stamped out, given no official recognition, such is simply inconsistent with the Constitution.
Leftists have no problem when courts impose leftist policy. We conservatives differ, because, to us, the Constitution means what it says. The Philly case might be different. Although a policy which denies that children benefit from a parent of each sex might be profoundly ignorant, subordinating the needs of children to the Politically Correct leftist agenda, when a religious institution’s (well founded and perfectly unobjectionable) moral views conflict with leftist sensibilities, and leftists are running the program, that does not appear to present the same problem.
The florist clearly ought to win. Catholic Charities probably ought to lose.
It doesn’t punish Catholic Charities to say “since you won’t do what the program says you must, you can’t participate”. It DOES punish Hobby Lobby to DEMAND that it participate. It does punish a florist to DEMAND that she do work she considers immoral. And if government is going to accommodate the racist Nation of Islam, it has no basis to refuse to accommodate the racist “Christian Identity” “church”.
MI already tolerates "hate groups ... in the prison chapel", and that passes without objection on the left. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Religion, what a wonderful excuse for bigots to ignore the laws that protect our civil rights.
47
I think I’m going to start a religion that, on a hot summer day, prevents me from wearing pants and underwear.
6
If the incarcerated adherents of the Christian Identity cult were clever, they would file suit asserting that their so-called religion prohibits the confinement of any of its members. Given recent judicial rulings which refuse to impose the slightest restriction upon claimed Christian religious practices, this theory should swiftly win the aggrieved inmates their release from prison.
Many years ago the U.S. Supreme Court had the audacity to suggest certain restrictions on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Their ability to recognize the need to draw a line was essentially the logical product of rational, reasoned, thought. Now, sadly, such intellectual traits are easily and summarily dismissed by Justices so willing to facilitate and advance the agendas of the far right's religious extremism.
7
Unfortunately, "the free exercise of religion" guaranteed by the first amendment roughly translates to "you may do whatever you wish as long as you sincerely believe you are doing it for supernatural reasons."
There is no way that an enlightened society is going to be able to make that mesh with a rational and unprejudiced justice system. It's in the nature of religious claims.
We've done well for a few hundred years because unlike say, certain religious fundamentalists of other countries, most Americans don't actually act on the most outrageous edicts of their religious texts.
24
@mitchtrachtenberg Great idea Mitch - but what happens if Trump's idea that God made him President means he too is a God? : )>
1
@Jeff Koopersmith Worshippers? Check. Power over life and death? Check. An insistence that you are omniscient and omnipotent? Check. Ability to relocate hurricanes? Check.
1
This is why I despise Bernie Sanders. He spent almost the entire election cycle implying Mrs. Clinton was corrupt while Republicans in Congress were holding phony hearing to paint her as corrupt.
The entire Judiciary has been changed for decades because of the division of the Democratic Party in 2016. The clock has been turned back on decades of work to expand citizen rights because of it.
The idea that we need radical change or Democrats are the same as Republicans is one of the worst lies both Warren and Bernie are pushing.
7
@HL -- We need radical change. Denial of that is why I despise Hillary.
This example is a narrow excuse, used to avoid the larger needs.
4
I always know I am in some sort of trouble when I start thinking who is the worst of the five supine court justices. They are all so bad. Still I always decide it is Alito. But that lasts maybe 30 seconds and then I start all over again.
16
All of the signs are now present that the Right wants a theocracy and return to the Dark Ages mentality. Barr’s speech to religious (Christian) broadcasters yesterday shows how this administration is stripping human rights from our society. There is no conspiracy to destroy Christianity, this argument is a smoke screen for their desire to rule over everybody and return to the time of the Inquisition. The SCOTUS and many of our higher courts are now populated by religious zealots whose humanity rests only in their tribal beliefs. They must be stopped at all costs before our constitution is replaced by a religious text.
30
Baking a cake or arranging flowers is not the issue Linda.
Consider the late American painter Thomas Kincaid, the painter of light. Mr. Kincaid exhibited his works in retail stores while he was alive. This is an example of commerce, much the same way your baker and florist have retail stores today. Anyone was welcome to stroll in and purchase a print, a photo, or an actual painting done by Mr. Kincaid.
Mr. Kincaid, from time to time, would also accept a commission to create custom pieces but at his discretion and free will. And therein lies the difference. The galleries provided free and open commerce, just like the baker and florist have done, but you would force Mr. Kincaid to perform on demand. You would seize his pencil.
You would endow every citizen the power of Pope Julius to force individuals to toil against their wishes. It would not matter that Mr. Kincaid did not wish to sketch a nude velvet, you would require it. You would require he paint it in florescent paint.
I'm suggesting there is line between the gallery and the studio. Free and open commerce is one thing Linda, a contract is another. Even SCOTUS refuses to hear cases.
NORTHXNW
3
This once secular nation is stumbling down a slippery slope a consequence of the inane ruling of "religious freedom". Basically, this nonsense decision states that my religious freedom is more important than your religious freedom and even more important than the non-observant. In doing so, we are establishing a home for hatred and dominance over normalcy as well as logic.
As a religious business owner, can I claim that my employees can not eat pork and must cover their heads and pray every day because my religious dogma would be greatly harmed?
6
The unfairness of those demanding religious exemptions is shocking. In the article, we read that religious groups are both demanding that they be treated equally and insisting that they do not have to perform equally. It's like me saying that I cannot be discriminated against in being hired for a job that is against my religion to perform. For example, suppose I am a pharmacist and I am a member of a Christian Scientist group that prohibits the use of drugs. I could demand to be paid while refusing to dispense any medications at all. This is getting crazy.
6
Belief? Oh good grief, I can believe anything and I can believe any other thing is causing me harm, but where is the data to prove the harm, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, then at least to a reasonable standard. What if I believed God was reading my mind? Could I wear an aluminum foil hat through an airport scanner? Many religious beliefs are just as ridiculous.
7
My religion, fervently held, allows me to pick and chose what laws I plan to follow or flaunt. I like my religion.
17
I personally find white supremacists repulsive. But then I also find "whiteness" studies and "gender theory" repulsive, threatening, and respectively racist and misogynist.
Part on living in a free and pluralistic society means living with people who hold to ideas you don't like and even despise. Right now, when we are becoming increasingly polarized and censorious, is the time for a strong and broad interpretation of our First Amendment liberties, not a narrowing of them.
If we are going to start allowing government to dictate what religious beliefs to allow, what is to prevent a left wing government from deciding that traditional Catholics or Christians are beyond the pale for their beliefs about marriage, the dignity of the body, and the immutability of sex and gender? We already have instances of DCF trying to take children from parents whose faith and conscience compel them to oppose transgenderism.
The slope is too slippery. We need more, not less freedom of speech and religion. I didn't vote for Trump, but as a Catholic mother and professional I'm glad conservative judges are the ones ruling on these issues. I fear for my freedom to raise my children and practice my profession according to my conscience.
5
I don’t know what your profession is, but if you hang out a public shingle you have to serve all races, religions, ethnicities and people of various sexual orientation equally. You do not get to pick and choose based upon personal prejudice.
5
@A F
I'm confused.
You worry about "a left wing government from deciding that traditional Catholics or Christians are beyond the pale for their beliefs about marriage, the dignity of the body, and the immutability of sex and gender" and "fear for my freedom to raise my children and practice my profession according to my conscience."
Yet you cheer conservative judges arriving at decisions that deprive me of rights based on their (and, it seems, your) values that I don't agree with and, in some cases, despise.
For example, the Hobby Lobby decision, where someone else's beliefs which are contrary to mine are upheld specifically to restrict my health care options?
5
@Chuck Burton
I can happily serve all people. But there are some areas of conscience where professionals should also have freedom from compulsion, especially as many professional organizations become increasingly driven by weaponized politics and activists, and not research, evidence, or even traditionally understood ethics.
The modern Republican party has fully embraced the Christian Identity movement. Look for the Republican justices to back it.
2
Scalia, in reply to my question when he visited our law school, said Boerne v Flores was decided because "we don't want to have to listen to every person who says 'God told me to'" -- making patent the fig leaf of the 5th Amendment explanation for overturning the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His rationale in Employment Division v. Smith was, ironically (a hallmark of Scalia talk), honest. Generally applicable laws must have serious impact, just as the burden on the religion must be substantial.
Here, the burden is huge, and the general laws crucial.
We desperately need a decent Free Exercise analysis, and we need to condemn white supremacy and anti-Semitism. If the religion advocated the ritual torture of small children, it would not be facilitated. Religious content is not sacrosanct, but it is sacred. I am deeply suspicious of examining religious content, but when someone says "I must hate Jews and non-whites because God told me to" then it is time to examine content.
2
Judicial thinking about the free exercise of religion and freedom from an establishment of religion is muddled in the extreme. All sorts of bizarre claims about religion are respected, but some traditional, religiously sanction beliefs and practices are disregarded by judicial fiat.
Some Christians believe that life begins at conception or quickening; other Christians and all Jews believe that life begins at quickening or breach. Yet Roe v. Wade imposes that minority Christian doctrine on most Christians and all Jews by regulating when and under what conditions the majority may elect abortion.
If some Christians were not included with all Jews, Roe v. Wade would be understood to be an antisemitic infringement of Constitutional rights. As it is, that landmark decision is an infringement on nearly everyone’s Constitutional rights.
1
Greenhouse notes that the Supreme Court has instructed judges to accept almost any religious claim, no matter how preposterous, at face value. One has to wonder if Christianity is included among the "preposterous" religions?
According to Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Preposterous, indeed.
12
@JWT -- That is the core of my problem with the whole subject. I think it is all equally preposterous.
If some is an evil like White Power, the established ones have also been used for great evils of their own.
Catholic committed genocides in the name of heresy (one example, Cathar Heresy caused genocide by "crusade" in France).
Protestants have hunted and killed Catholics, for hundreds of years, even to Northern Ireland today. (England is doted with old homes featuring "Priest holes" in which they hid)
Jews. Muslims. Hindus. Japanese Shinto was used to justify atrocities all over the Pacific in WW2.
Yet those are "major" religions that get protection.
How about Greek, Roman, or Norse gods? Animism? Those were and sometimes are still strong. Animism gets new respect as Native.
I think all of them are based on sky pixie fantasy used by cynics to manipulate those who don't dare stand up to them.
Yet we must protect religion. We have found in practice that denial of any of them, or all of them, leads to things even worse. See China and the Soviet Union, as much as any one of the purity movements against the others.
It is a weakness of humanity as it is today. We can't pretend it is fixable by fiat of our own personal wisdom.
So which ones are so far outside the limits of acceptable absurd myth?
No matter the line we draw, it always has the same truth, but the same flaw.
This is the road to absurdity. What if I were a member of the Christian Identity movement — not in prison — would it be legal for me to refuse to serve anyone of color in my restaurant? What if my religion did not allow me to serve any Trump supporters? What if my religion espoused ritual child abuse, am I free from prosecution for that?
If you live in a society you must abide by its laws, no matter what your beliefs are, religious or otherwise.
19
As an Orthodox Jew, I have looked with fear at recent European government rulings forbidding circumcision and the ritual slaughtering of animals required for kosher meat.
While i obviously have no interest in fomenting anti-Semitism among the prison population, I am terrified of allowing government officials to define what constitutes reasonable religious practice.
1
That is what we elect our governments to do, make difficult and even arbitrary distinctions. Present Mexican law decriminalizes possession of ALL illegal drugs in the amount of nine grams or less. If you possess 10 grams whether it is weak field marijuana or crack cocaine it is a felony. In the state of Washington it is statutory rape to have sex with someone 15 years, 11 months and 29 days old. The very next day it is legal. But in California all those numbers are raised by two years. Why? Are the lads and lasses of the Golden State more vulnerable to predation? I know that you wish to protect your own brand of personal superstition, but your recipe leads to anarchy.
How about the Supreme Court recusing itself from any rulings on religion due to the separation of church and state?
4
There are a couple of troubling points in this article. So for example, she is arguing in effect that white supremacist religious groups should not enjoy protected privilege because they are 'dangerous', they hold anti semitic, anti black, etc views and can be considered violent. Yet how does that differ from evangelical Christians who are often willing to resort to violence when it comes to abortion, killing abortion doctors and targeting clinics, putting doctors names and locations on web based 'hit lists'..or for that matter, the Catholic Church leaders and the evangelicals with their hatred for gays? While these charges may argue they don't urge violence, they certainly use rhetoric that causes it, like equating homosexuality with pedophilia.
Another thing in the article is saying the religious liberty act has energized "a Christian Majority", that is a falsehood. It is true the GOP has put a lot of religious nuts on the bench, and that thanks to Gerrymandering it has made areas loaded with evangelicals powerful, but the large majority of people in this country who are Christian don't agree with this, among catholics it is maybe 80%, among mainstream protestants it is about the same, it is only among the evangelicals, who make up maybe 25-30% of the population that this holds. The real problem is other religious groups and mainstream Catholics are not speaking up against this law, they insist they have to protect their 'Christian brethren'
2
I knew freedom of religion was a danger to a civil society. Thanks, Linda.
2
Still in the news in Central New York, is the fall out from one fatal beating and another near fatal beating conducted by members, including the victims' families, of the Word of Life Christian Church in New Hartford, NY. Religious freedom is not just about religious displays in public, but also, can be about a religions self-proclaimed right to indoctrinate, discipline and engage in cult-like, gang-like behavior toward members of all ages. So, now, the same Catholic social service type agencies who might have created orphans for adoption by taking the newborn infants of unmarried mothers desire not to place such infants with same sex couples. Big surprise. The fact is: my tax dollars support the faith based initiatives of organizations that don't have my best interests in mind and that don't pay taxes themselves. As for the two guys in a prison claiming Christ while hating non-whites - are they claiming legal status because some larger group in their facility is having their rights of limited association upheld?
1
In their evident desire to push a conservative agenda of interpretation by selective discersion, five justices want to remake American law. From the border guard decision to the case discussed here they are using the appearance of protecting minorities and officers who 'fear for their lives' to go beyond the law and extend unlimited freedom over others to groups they like.
Just as Free Speech and Free Press and Right of Assembly have never been taken to mean that race riots and organizing the overthrow of the government are OK, so Freedom of Religion does not mean that we must stone to death without trial women who commit adultery or men who are gay, even if 2500 years ago in a far-off land it meant that.
Freedom to Keep and Bear my guns does not mean I have the right to shoot anyone I want. If a Mexican border guard shoots across the border and kills Americans working on Trump's wall, should their families be able to sue for damages in a Mexican court? In my area the Amish properly claim that their horse carts have the same right to roads as cars because the carts came first, and their religion forbids their having cars. They do not forbid modern roads or others from driving cars on them. Your freedom ends at the other person's nose. Prisoners cannot be allowed to endanger others in the guise of free exercise of religion.
5
I'm with Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Five will bow to the Republican gibberish and give the haters the right to equal treatment.
As to protecting religion, the Catholic five should remember that the Catholic church has protected child molesters and allowed them to continue their monstrous practices. I would argue that Catholic services is not safe as a source for child placement and should be excluded from that service for that reason alone. Better yet, follow the constitution's prohibition of religion in government in any form.
3
Justice Gorsuch is not a Catholic.
1
The Supreme Court protects Christians at the expense of everyone else. Christians and all others should be allowed to exist. The extreme right's attacks on religions other than Christianity have clearly had an impression on the Court. It is truly sad, pathetic, and dangerous that the Trump and Bush 43 appointees can't understand the Constitution.
3
You know how they are going to rule... 5 to 4... usual... it’s why the GOP backs Trump regardless of anything he does... tax cuts, immigration, destroying the environment... everything else is secondary...
4
You simply can't set up a church and call yourself as such to win special privileges in prisons.
We have reached the absolute point of idiocy, and if this court goes along with this so-called case pitched by white nationalists, well, goodbye Constitution and the anti-disestablishment clause.
The guardrails between church and state, civic society and freedom of religion are being bent beyond recognition by ideologues that are trying essentially to undermind the 1st amendment.
4
Sorry, this is a bit of a word salad.....
I would argue that religious hate groups already have, and have always had, a seat at the table. Not because the doctrine of milquetoast Christianity, or Islam, or Scientology, mandates hate specifically, but rather because of the fundamentals of human nature, and religious belief. Any set of doctrines that are unfalsifiable, and yet claim to be the source of fundamental truths about the world, will necessarily breed fear of an opposing doctrine.
And I must apologize in advance, but I am going to quote Yoda here: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
All that being said, what used to be great about the United States, and more specifically, the set of cultural norms and practices (to say nothing of the Constitution) which saw us through our first two millennia, was the acceptance of the plurality of personal beliefs, no matter how ridiculous. This is what is threatened by the erosion of the establishment clause. The idea that there were two tables at which to be seated, the adults table, and the kids table, and the adults understood that the afore-mentioned plurality of beliefs could only be sustained by a system of laws rooted in empirical truths. Now I'm sitting next to my 8 year old nephew who's eating his booger while I'm trying to enjoy my mashed potatoes. #SAD
1
@Lee Oswald
Jesus actually equated hate with murder.
Red States want a white theocracy. Blue States want diverse secular humanism. We need a divorce, and we need it quickly. Or we can have Covil War II. I'm betting on civil war.
3
@SteveH
1. All states are purple. The shades do vary, but they are all purple.
2. Civil wars in the 21st Century look really, really different than in the 19th Century. You can think of many examples. These modern conflicts are ugly and interminable, and characterized by both rampant terrorism and murderous dictatorships. There are no winners.
3. In a break-up of the USA into separate countries, who would get the nukes? When the USSR broke up, all the peripheral countries gave all their nukes to Russia.
Considering 1, 2, and 3, what do you think about breaking up the USA?
1
In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito wrote that RFRA went far beyond First Amendment protections.
Indeed it did. RFRA and RLUIPA both privilege the religious to violate neutral, generally applicable laws (under certain circumstances) that the non-religious (facially) or the other-religious (as applied) must comply with.
The only difference between who has to comply with a law and who doesn't among otherwise similarly situated people is a set of ideas inside their heads. Jefferson and Madison would be puking at the notion of RFRA laws.
And indeed so should we all. It is flat out unconstitutional to discriminate in the law on the basis of viewpoint (ideas inside people's heads).
RFRA and RLUIPA are regulatory capture by the Christian right.
3
Personally, I consider ALL religion totally bogus, so if Jews or Evangelicals or Catholics, or others, have some special rights of Prayer to Invisible Beings , then so should the "We Believe in Purple Slippers converts" be allowed their prayers. Either that, or we should accept that we no longer live in 1776; we're no longer beaten into believing in Jesus or anything else; we should all grow up and reject ALL these fantasies.
4
The Quintuplets - the five lock-step-jack-boot conservative justices utilize originalism/textualism to justify Big Chruch, Big Busines, Big Citizen's United, Big No on Abortion, Big, Big, Big.
What did the Founders think about the Constitution? Was it etched in stone like the Ten Commandments? Or was the Constitution a living document, malleable, a beginning, a work in progress?
George Washington: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.”
Thomas Jefferson: “... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.”
James Madison: “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional ...
The Quints love "the company they keep" - the Federalist Society et.al.
Interesting that the "original intent" majority on the Supreme Court has no intention of applying---or even determining---Congress's original intent in passing the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act. In fact, the majority seems bent on applying an interpretation of the law that is 180 degrees off course from its original intent.
The 'claim' of religious freedom, to impose the 'beliefs' of a few, on the many in civil society, is not freedom, license instead, and in need of separation. This country had the healthy wisdom to separate state from religion, having had the experience, and escaped from, multiple religious persecutions, torture and killings, in the 'old country', with the hope that mayhem shall not be repeated here. To those out there believing that religious beliefs are to be forced upon us, ought to introspect, and recognize that 'believing is not knowing'; especially when we create a God to our liking and specifications, especially when it allows odious discriminations and suffering...in the name of an all-loving God. However much some Supreme Court members are of the religious variety, they should not force an issue they have no authority towards, and where reason and common sense ought to reign supreme.
1
The Supreme Court jurisprudence on religion will forever remain muddled for a very simple reason, the Supreme Court has never defined what constitutes a “religion.” While perhaps understandable given the delicacy of the issue, it is hard to set rules when the object itself remains undefined.
Yes, and how can the Court do so when God refuses to sustain any of the great variety of religious beliefs.
Hearsay is denied as evidence in most courts.
Where does "constitutional doctrine" end and nonsense begin? Aren't the current and recent cases analogous to the "shouting 'fire!'" exception to free speech? I have long wondered why, in the courts' view, I cannot start my own "religion", and it seems now that I can. I base my claim on a new legal "doctrine", viz. "If that, then why not this"?
3
If Trump wins another term, you can almost guarantee a 7-2 deeply conservative SCOTUS for another decade or so. The ramifications of that, well, I cannot believe this isn't a top campaign talking point for any and all democrats.
8
Adherence to “originalism” by definition includes sanctioned discrimination like slavery and disenfranchisement of broad categories of Americans: Blacks, women, etc. Every time you hear one of the Conservative SCOTUS justices using that language in their argument you can rest assured that they’re about to reaffirm institutionalized bigotry.
248
@David Walker
Yes when the Right says they are originalists, what they mean is that originally we had a king, rich white men controlled everything, and they could tell you what to believe in.
Originalists ignore the plain language of the Constitution to claim features of monarchy are in the Constitution.
The Right (including our Attorney General) keeps pushing a made up "unitary executive" theory that says there are no limits on Trump's power. It's nonsense.
They also push the idea that their interpretation of their bible is the basis of our laws. It's nonsense.
Until "Centrists" stop helping the Right attack our Constitution, our Constitutional crisis will get worse.
Compared to the Right the Left IS moderate.
Choose a side.
26
I’d be interested to read about some case where a UPS driver or US Postal Service worker refuses to make deliveries to some church or business on the grounds of religious or moral objection to the establishment. Could they sue to keep their job?
And how about city snow removal workers, firefighters or building inspectors?
We need a test case to push this issue.
24
@Paul Brown
It is one thing to have a job it is another thing
for a business to offer a service.
We have economic discrimination worse than any
other type in America, in that if you cannot afford to
eat or stay at a "Fine Hotel" the hotel is under no obligation
to offer you a cheaper meal or a cheaper room - yet what
is more vital than finding food to eat and a room to sleep in - but no one says anyone's constitutional rights are being violated.
If you are not particularly pretty or handsome or are willing to bribe the doorman, good luck getting into the latest nightclub that has a line outside.
Why do you want to force people to do what they
really rather not do, Paul, do you not understand what
the "Freedom of Expression of your Moral beliefs" means ?
1
It seems that there is a significant difference between a political movement with a quasi-religious face and the religious traditions that are centuries old with clearly defined and well-documented theology. There are certainly sincere beliefs in less established sectors, but without a consistent and documentable history of belief, it seems somewhat extreme to potentially compromise safety to accommodate what seems to be a preference.
The school voucher issue seems unnecessarily controversial when the state tries to control where it is spent. To be equitable, vouchers should be granted for a student, rather than a particular school; administered based on need; and designated for the purpose of education under the auspices of an accredited institution or state homeschool law. Families of kids at any point on the income spectrum — not just the wealthy — should be able to choose an education they believe will best prepare their children for the future. When the state determines that secularism/atheism/agnosticism is the only philosophy they are willing to fund, it seems that they have established a de facto religion, which is exactly what they are not supposed to be doing.
As for easily available services such as cake baking or flower arranging, I think respect and civility have to go both ways. I can’t imagine thinking it’s okay to force people to work on projects they are not willing to undertake — involuntary servitude is toxic and dehumanizing.
2
@JP Campbell birth control is not a sin. Centuries of stupidity don’t change that.
1
@JP Campbell: Seculaism is, by definition, not a religion, and performing one's chosen profession for pay is not involuntary servitude.
1
@JP Campbell
As the saying goes, if atheism is a religion, then Off is a TV channel.
1
For those, like Ms. Greenhouse, interested in engaging in critical analysis of law and policy, please understand: the far right and “its” court are only interested in pushing the limits as far as possible, regardless of what conclusion the law and precedent, and rational public policy, would lead one to with honest intellectual analysis.
6
The consequences of this decision, should it prevail, will be far reaching just as the Citizens United and gutting voting rights act have been. To grant religions and literally anyone with a so-called "moral objection" to ANYONE deemed unsuitable to their views will have terrble consequences. Where does it stop? Will the Catholic social services agencies that provide not just adoption services but also, say, hospice services or other healthcare services decide they can opt out treating anyone who is LGBTQ? Will this decision enable a religious hospital, of which many are in the hands of of religious organizations, tell ambulance drivers that these patients will not be welcome in their emergency rooms? And what about housing? Will landlords seeing two women asking to rent an apartment or buy a house together be turned away because the person deciding to provide an apartment or a mortgage suspect that they may be gay? In other words, the consequences of this decision are so far-reaching our heads will be spinning as the reality of state-sanctioned discrimination against a group of people considered not equal takes hold.
62
Regarding the prisoners, I think they probably should be allowed to worship as they choose and with whom they choose, unless the prison or county jail can prove that it presents an actual safety risk — i.e. threats made at the services or inmates assaulting or intimidating others — or that it is a heavy burden on jail resources, such as extra guards, who need additional payment, required to supervise the inmates at a certain time. Safety does need to be taken into account but it should be based on an actual threat posed by these specific inmates, not on what ifs.
In general, I think there needs to be wide latitude for religious expression in the public square and all free expression. I hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Catholic adoption agency and the parents in Montana who want to use tuition grants for the religious school.
2
@Bookworm8571 ok then. How about human sacrifice in the public square. The Aztecs did it.
1
@Bookworm8571 It has been well-established that constitutionally-protected freedom of speech is not absolute. There is no legal basis for excluding that principle from application to claims of religious beliefs. Do we have to wait until those promoting racial or religious hatred murder Jews, as followers of the Black Israelite movement have recently done, or a group in Florida dismembering animals seeking protection from criminal liability now claim?
@Dra There must, of course, be limits. We prosecute parents who prayed instead of taking their very sick children to the doctor. Human sacrifice is clearly not allowed. We don’t let adult men marry 12 year olds, regardless of their religious beliefs. But freedom of religious expression is precious and it must be very broad and very robust and accommodations should be made where they can be. If other adoption agencies exist in the city, why must the Catholic adoption agency officials serve gay parents in violation of their religious beliefs, for instance?
2
At what point does the Free Exercise Clause eat the Establishment clause? As Scalia seemed to warn in Employment Division v. Smith, the justices in Fox v. Washington were basically asked to determine if the inmate’s religion is legitimate. If we grant exemptions to generally applicable laws to anyone claiming religious grounds, such as the inmates in Fox, we cease to be a nation of laws. Don’t like the law or regulation? Claim a religious exemption. If judges or legislators decide which religious exemptions are legitimate, or righteous, we are establishing religions.
Underlying the Religious Land Use act, the state religious freedom restoration acts, and the decisions supporting them, is the assumption that certain religious beliefs are legitimate and deserving of protection. When the majority of politicians and judges are of basically one or two religions, they are blind to the establishment problem. Mainstream Jewish and Christian beliefs are so woven into their lives they do not see carving out exemptions or special treatment for those followers as government establishment of those religious beliefs. What appears to be an innocuous exemption, such as an exception for birth control, becomes ridiculous when applied to an honor killing. If it “is not for us to say their religious are mistaken or insubstantial,” what stops a brother from claiming religious belief as a defense for killing a sister who slept with a man outside of marriage?
66
@Turner Boone
Wouldn't one need to apply a 1st Amen ruling for a tax break to qualify?
@Turner Boone
The problem with your argument is that religious biases, in this case racism, is not illegal. That’s not the case for murdering your sister. Racism may be abhorrent to the public and morally inconsistent with our society’s beliefs in equality and human dignity, but being a racist is not a crime. If these men were not in prison would they be banned from practicing their religion? And, if government agencies are given the power to decide which religion are legitimate and which are not, what’s to keep them from infringing on the rights of main stream religions, for example, on issues like abortion? Protecting a fringe group’s Constitutional rights is essential in other to protect the integrity of our laws and the constitutional rights of all citizens.
The increasing drift of the GOP to the extreme right (as well as their willingness to cheat - Merrick Garland, voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.) is why we now have a conservative Supreme Court that is very much out of step with a majority of Americans. Most Court observers anticipate more 5-4 decisions that blur the separation between church and state, in direct opposition to our founders intent.
We are increasingly learning what life is like when our political leaders are also religious zealots.
184
@Paul Mc
Is it clear that Judge Garland would have gotten
sufficient votes to be placed on the Supreme Court ?
@John Brown
It is clear he should have been given the chance to try because he had a right to try. To have the outcome pre determined by McConnell takes away the reason to have a body, the Senate, reason these things out.
16
@george
Let us be honest, how much reasoning goes
on in the Senate or the House ?
The Recent impeachment hearings were hardly
open to all and any pertinent questions.
Congressmen Schiff ran his hearing with a
very tight hand and cut off Republicans when
they had questions they wanted answered but
he did not.
Likewise, in the Senate McConnell refused to
allow an open calling of witnesses.
2
I suspect the far right that has now taken over our Constitutionally designed arms of government will apply the same absolutist thinking that they do to the second amendment - any compromise will create the slippery slope to loss of guns. In this case they are willing to pretend to stand for all religions, minor and major, in order to in the end impose their view on all. Absolutist thinking is not solely the province of the far right but it is ascendant and ready to further it's rule by changing the rules.
18
At the heart of conservative agenda in these cases is the intent to use religion as a cudgel against a wide variety of "enemies." These include the unchurched, atheists, and non-Christians. But there are several other attractive targets such as the ACA, public education in general and gender equality which are seen as hostile elements in American society that need to be destroyed or at least restrained.
The ascendancy of Trump has wrought the greatest threats ever to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Trump is a most willing tool of and advocate of for a return to an America that existed in TV shows of the 50's - Leave it Beaver, Father Knows Best, et al. Evangelicals and Catholics have been aching for just what has happened over the last three years as the GOP-controlled Senate has pushed through a new crop of Federalist Society judicial picks that will, over the next several decades, reshape legal interpretation in ways that would shock the Founders.
All of us, believers or not, would be well advised to pray for the defeat of Trump, the longevity of Justice Ginsburg and the continued viability of a free press. To the mind of this 75-year old citizen I truly fear that what awaits this nation in November is the choice between patent authoritarianism and the last remnants of our cherished liberty and democracy.
143
@cogit845 My friend, it is not the 1950's these people want to return to; it is the 1850's.
5
@Bob Laughlin
1850s B.C.E.
Don’t like the potential outcome? That’s fine with me, it’s hardly going to bring about the end of civil society. The relevant words refer to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, I am not a religious person, but the displays of faith are of no consequence to me.
6
@T Smith As a lawyer, I must beg to differ. The First Amendment actually provides "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The anti-establishment clause is aimed at precisely that: freedom from religion in the functioning of government. There is a long line of Supreme Court cases on this very subject.
104
@T Smith — y’ missed it. Big time. Our Constitution protects us from religious dictums from any religions period.
3
@T Smith Display is fine but when they try and make others live by thier rules it is another story. I am thinking abortion, LGBTQ rights, ect.
1
When will this insanity end?
The bill of rights is not a suicide pact.
Religious organizations already can:
1) not pay taxes despite benefiting from roads, police, firefighters etc.
2) not abide by personnel laws forbidding hiring and firing on the basis of discrimination
3) not provide standard healthcare to their employees e.g. birth control
4) not provide routine medical care to patients whose lifestyle they object to
5) not provide a public accommodation to persons they object to ( cake bakers etc.)
What's next? Refuse to live in the world as they find it because it offends their delicate sensibilities?
Despite benefiting from all of societies abundant largesse.
Sounds like insanity to me.
413
@mr. trout, And they call progressives snowflakes! I am a moderate but i can see that the far right is every bit as snow-flaky as the far left.
7
@Katherine Cagle
Except the far right are not snowflakes but mold spores. Why? Because mold spores look horrible, smell bad, cause disease and death.
2
@mr. trout
We have to overturn the religious tax exemption laws.
2
It's hard to understand the "pretzel logic" of the conservative judges. It should be pretty simple: We all have a "public" life where we are to follow laws that are applied to all of us in same way and a "private" life where we follow the dictates of our own beliefs without interference. Instead, increasingly we have a situation where religion has become a club with which we beat our fellow citizens over the head.
291
@Wally No logic required. Power does what it does.
12
The issue is as much, or perhaps more, philosophical than it is legalistic. The Supreme Court, as a thoroughly secular institution, seems either ill-equipped to decide such issues, or at least should concede to principles of human life mattering shared by all religions. No religion countenances hate. What survives from the Greek Axial Age is the secular approach to what makes life worth living—a concession to religion as arbiter of what human life means.
7
@rjon
It doesn't work that way, the Supreme Court is not supposed to judge whether religious belief is valid or not, they are supposed to determine how religion plays out under the law. Claiming that no religion contenances hate is not true, if you read the Bible or the Q'ran it is full of hate, often sanctioned by God (or so it claims). As far as the principles of human life being shared, the 3 major religions scripture all support slavery, does that mean it should be made legal again? (While the NT doesn't directly mention it, Paul in one of his epistles tells an escaped slave to go back to his master, implying quite strongly the view of slavery, given Paul claims to speak in Christ's name).
The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the constitution and with applying the law to issues, not religious morality, for the very reason that religious morality is subjective. The law, while not purely objective (as can be seen in rulings by the religious right judges we now sadly have on the bench), is supposed to be based on legal principles and among those is in maintaining order in the public square. The right to religious liberty, like many other rights, ends when it comes into conflict with other rights. If it didn't, then religious discrimination would be legal in employment and in the government for that matter, a goverment employee could refuse to help a Jew or a Moslem or a Christian based on religious belief....and law is based on written law and precedence.
45
@music observer Helpful and instructive response, although not particularly philosophical. Let me state only one slight but important disagreement: the genius of American law is that it is based, not only in Roman law (“written law and precedence”), but also English common law, where a justice can lean across the bench and say “marvelously constructed case, counselor, but is it fair?”
@rjon
Your "either/or" game is not being played on the same field. Even were the Supreme Court "ill-equipped" to decide these issues (because, of course, they are and should be a secular institution), it has no interest in any religion's stated principles. No religion is arbiter of what human life means; we humans decide that.
The Supreme Court will not tell me to pay money to a church. Of any religion. If they try, I will stop paying my taxes. It’d like to only pay the taxes I know will not go to the church, but because it is impossible to know for certainty which tax dollar goes where, I will be forced to stop paying my taxes altogether.
The United States government will NOT force me to give money to a church to which I am not a member, and a religion I do not believe in.
76
@Austin Ouellette
Right.
That's the Establishment Clause. This case is about Free Exercise. Different Clause.
5
If you pay taxes today, you are already indirectly supporting these religions due to their special tax status.
18
@Austin Ouellette EVERY citizen subsidizes religion through our taxes. Every taxpaying one anyway. Churches can start bellying up and pay too, instead of whining, crying and moaning when they don't receive special treatment AND secular dollars.
Snowflakes whining about some war on christmas somewhere. And the clowns don't even know the origin of christmas. And yet here we are, otherwise intelligent people, caving to "respect for beliefs" to those dangerous, deeply empowered and deeply entrenched whack jobs
18
It's worth keeping in mind that the decisions that are causing Ms. Greenhouse's concern, which I share, involve privileging conservative, and even extreme right-wing Christianity over other religions. Would the courts favor a Muslim or even a Buddhist group that explicitly was hostile to conservative Christianity? Almost certainly not. These decisions are being made because conservative Christianity is the form of religion that (ever more) conservative politicians and political jurists are most comfortable with, that reminds them most of their other views. Favoring these religions helps achieve conservative goals generally. And, like members of law enforcement who feel reluctant to go after armed far right terrorists because the terrorists' views are a wild exaggeration of their own, conservative jurists are likely to be reluctant to limit Christian Identity, seeing its members as merely "errant", but potentially savable.
321
@Stephen Merritt Perhaps true. But kinda irrelevant. Action-result-reaction. And over any term measured in more than a generation or two, meaningless.
Here's the bottom line. White conservatives have worked furiously, and with total disregard for "others" to get what they want. And they're (seemingly) getting it. In Trump parlance, they're "winning". BUT, demographics are not in their favour and when their demographics fail, all will be undone, and more.
They missed the real lesson of South Africa; you can't wield power indefinitely as a minority. The longer you hang on, the greater the repercussions. And are thus doomed to repeat it.
Will they get another presidency? Quite possibly. Will it be their last? Quite possibly.
So Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be replaced by a conservative. But after that, the court will tilt increasingly "left".
27
@Stephen Merritt Does the Christian religion "remind [the Republican Justices] most of their other views." Actually the main reason these judges were chosen is to further plutocratic economic policies, and to consolidate the political power of the Republican party itself - religion and other "social" conservative attitudes are secondary and the justices often treat them gingerly to avoid losing political support for Republicans. But the economic attitudes strongly supported by these Justices are in no way derived from or consistent with the teachings of Christ himself. Republicans politicians and judges essentially make a bargain with religious movements - exchanging support for religious and racist policies for support of plutocratic policies.
15
@Stephen Merritt
Good points. US history is replete with legal decisions that seem to only restrict those organizations disfavored by those in power.
3
It seems clear that the Court will apply the “Law” according to their prejudices, not according to the intent of the Constitution nor according to the well being of the Nation and enforcement of harmonious relations between mutually intolerant sects.
215
Can Clarence Thomas vote to say white supremacy is a verifiable religious tenet? Does his self-hatred run that deep? Can John Roberts vote to undermine the authority of prison officials in policing prison gangs—a church by any other name would be as dangerous? Can his EC mania trump even his law n order roots? I still have to believe this is a line the Court won’t cross.
4
@John Brews
Constitutional originalism was never more than smoke and mirrors. It's only radical when your opponent does it...
12
The language of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The language of the Second Amendment states that "a well-regulated militia" being necessary for defense, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
In both cases the right-wing majority of this court has been reflexively favoring the second part of each clause while essentially ignoring the first. Both positions, of course, being the most reactionary interpretation possible. A "threat to civil society" indeed.
In the case of religion, this court majority has in particular been quite busy "establishing" the primacy of religion over non-religion. Well, actually, the primacy of religion over just about everything else.
428
@TimesChat
There is no way Congress can "make no law" and avoid "prohibiting the free exercise" at the same time in the same place. This Amendment is absurd. So, of course, is the Second. How tough would it be to edit these things to make sense? Send it to English departments around the country, they'll do the work over the summer break.
22
@TimesChat
In my opinion this court loves money and Big Business above all. Religion runs a close second though
36
@TimesChat Actually, the primacy of the most right-wing version of Christianity over just about everything else.
28
It is ironic that the Court is focusing on religion in this way considering that at least 20 percent of Americans identify as having no religious affiliation or as being outright non-believers—atheists, agnostics, Humanists, etc.
142
Read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Theocracy isn’t just a dystopian novel anymore in America. It is growing and we have to stop the radical right from taking over the country in service of power while they wrap themselves in religion as their cover.
236
@Tiny Terror : Not at all ironic. I think that the purpose is to allow further marginalization of that 20% by an even smaller number of Christian zealots.
19
Methinks that is precisely the problem for them; the fact that “none” is the fastest growing religious preference in the nation. It scares them to no worldly end.
34
There was a time, not so long ago, when one could order, via the mail (before the internet), a certificate attesting to one's status as a minister in a church which you yourself could create. You were even granted a degree in theology. It was used by people to declare that since they were now a recognized church, they and their money and property were free from taxation.
The most egregious case, perhaps, was the Scientology movement, which in its fight with the IRS broke into the IRS offices, stole documents and then blackmailed the IRS into giving it religious status.
Since then the IRS has been more careful about granting religious status to any person claiming a new belief.
But, it seems that the religious members of Congress and the Supreme Court in a desire to establish a Theocracy are willing to go back on that history and allow any claim to religious freedom stand.
I think it is time for me to order my degree in theology, get myself declared a minister and apply for my religious exemption. Thanks.
192
@Marc That's a good business move. If you have few deductions now, and a good income, it's almost a must move. Preach on !
11
@Marc your comment will probably sound ridiculous to some readers, but 35 years ago a neighbor’s brother in law did just that. He worked in sales, but established, on paper only, a church in New Jersey and stopped paying taxes.
His partner in this scheme eventually got cold feet and paid his taxes. I can only hope the BIL got caught as a result.
Said BIL also got caught tampering with his electric meter and both him and his wife ended up in federal court for defrauding the electric company.
11
@Marc
I'm hearing the call of the Church of the Sandy Beach Front.
19