Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 151
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually we would allow those whose religion advocates human sacrifice in the country. We just wouldn't allow them to perform their rituals.

    We don't let ANYONE violate our laws for the sake of their religious practice and whether those people belong to a well-established religion or a brand-new or foreign religion makes no difference at all.
    Yea, that is what I meant, and if you count exemptions as "breaking the law" then we absolutely do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yes it would. It just wouldn't allow them to kill people. But if I want to practice a religion that has human sacrifice as one of its major tenets, I have the first amendment right to do so. I just can't actually sacrifice anyone.
    I think you are misunderstanding my meaning. Of course I'm talking about the actual practice of human sacrifice, that is the context you brought up, I haven't diverted from that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But if human sacrifice was established, it would still be against the law. Do you contest this? If not, then it's clear that being established does not prevent an activity from remaining illegal.
    If it were established that would mean a WHOLE lot of stuff would be different. Like our value of human life.
    we would probably view such a thing much more like abortion is viewed by many.

    I don't see this line as being productive as it is to much of an unknown.
    However, feel free to give a detailed explanation of the kind of culture you think we would be, and then extrapolate, I doubt I would be able to accept many of your assumptions but it's your argument to make, so I will keep an open mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I do see a difference between a religious illegal act and a secular illegal act. But I don't see a difference that leads me to think that they should be treated differently under the law nor have I been made aware of such a difference in this debate.
    Well, in the case of prohibition, the difference was that the secular act was a physical abuse of a substance, while the religious act was a long standing ritual.
    So.. there is that kind of stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Until you support that my position does away with the free exercise clause, this comment is rejected.
    You may reject conclusions as you wish, it is not a rebuttal.
    My point stands, and I think you missed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. My response to your argument is support or retract that the government has done things in the past that warrant religious exemption.
    The fact that I disagree with the law that you are saying that there should be an exemption for does not mean that I agree that there should have been a religious exemption to that law. So again, you will need to support that an exemption was warranted.

    As far as I can tell, your only attempt at supporting this is saying that established and traditional religious practices should get an exemption from new laws. But this seems to be nothing more than your opinion so you will need to support that this is so before this belief of yours is supported.
    I see this as commentary so will skip.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I disagree that the law justified a religious exemption so you will need to support that it did before I can consider accepting that as a premise.

    And let me make my position clear - I disagree with a Religious exemption for prohibition. In other words, if prohibition was the law of the land and it was proposed that a religious exemption should be given for religious ceremonies, I would vote "no" on that. I would vote "yes" on repealing prohibition in general but I hold that giving an exemption for just religious purposes violates the establishment clause and therefore should not happen. Even though I think religious people should be able to use wine in a ceremony, I would not agree with allowing this via a route that violates the first amendment.

    So you will actually need to make a SUPPORTED argument for a religious exemption for prohibition before you can make an argument that is based on the premise that this exemption should be allowed.

    Until you do that, I do not accept any argument that is based on the premise that this particular exemption should be allowed, despite the fact that I do agree that religious use of alcohol should not be prohibited.

    And for the record, I NEVER said that I was in favor of a religious exemption for prohibition. I've consistently said that I think prohibition is a bad law and that wine should be allowed to be used in religious ceremonies because I disagree with outlawing wine in general. But I could see that my position as earlier stated was fogging the issue a bit so I'm making it clear that I do not support religious exemption for prohibition.
    The only area left for your assumption to be valid is on some other meaning regarding free excersise. I have asked a few times for you to clarify the meaning, and you refuse.

    My case is supported where the free excersise clause is assumed to mean religious practices that are established and common in the U.S. Communion is one such example and perfectly applies in the instance of prohibition.
    All of which has been laid out in the thread. the only response I see from you is that your not convinced. That does not equate to it not being supported.

    So, what exactly are you asking me to support.
    1) The context for which religious exemptions currently and in the past exist
    or
    2) That such exemptions should exist?

    I get the feeling you want me to argue the second, but I don't see a burden for that, as it already is the case.
    I guess, I would say that the gov should value protecting religion as it is such a large part of our society, and the gov OUGHT to be limited so as to prevent it from becoming an enemy of established common religions of america.
    Basically, the const should be as it is, and the framers have been proven right in it's attempts to protect religion from the gov.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say that they were helped (as in they received help in the past).

    I'm saying that giving them an exemption does help them. Certainly if one can't perform a ceremony due to a law and then they are given an exemption to the law, they have received help in being able to perform their ceremony.

    Is this debate actually degenerating into a semantic debate over what receiving help actually means?
    Apparently as your understanding and Idea of "helped" has been defined out of what the gov means. Ie Specificaly excluded.
    I gave linked support for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I am making my own argument and am no less justified in picking my example as you are justified in picking your example. My argument that uses human sacrifice highlights the issues regarding religious exemption just fine.
    Well, as it is your argument and it is not a relevant response to any of my points, I'll ignore it in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it gives religion preference over non-religion. If you want to use wine for a religious ceremony, fine. If you want to use the exact same amount of wine to have with your dinner, you can't. So it gives a religious ceremony preference over a secular activity.

    I see no reason why the use of wine in a religious ceremony should be given legal preference over a glass of wine at dinner. To argue that the ceremonial wine is more important is to put religious activity above a drink at dinner. And I understand that to those who perform the ceremony, the religious use of wine is indeed more important than the wine at dinner. But their reasoning for this is religious reasoning and for the government to adopt that reasoning is to give religion preference over secularism.
    The reason is that your dinner is not const protected, while religion is.
    Legally the defined difference is that you having wine at dinner is not a matter of concience. You don't feel you are going to go to hell over it.

    [QUOTE=MICAN] And that's a HUGE "if". I'm pretty sure the prohibition example was exclusively aiding Catholics.

    I'm saying that allowing the government to play favorites is a direct governmental involvement in religions and therefore gives government more control over religion. And allowing religious exemptions is a way for the government to play favorites. And saying that the government cannot give exemptions prevents the government from playing favorites and therefore limits governmental control over religion, not increases it. [/QUOTE
    I will not accept your ASSUMITIONS, your going to have to offer some support for your positions eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Shifting the burden. If you are going to argue that the free exercise clause gives religions an exemption from obeying secular law, then YOU need to explain to ME exactly what the "free exercise clause" means and how it actually gives current and commonly practiced religious actions legal exemption from secular law. And if you are going to do that, please use a valid source for your explanation of what the FEC is (like wikipedia).

    Until you support that the FEC does what you say it does, your claim regarding it fails for lack of support.
    I am pretty sure I have offered linked support several times. However, I could be wrong. so here it is again.
    Different link this time

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a46f378785a0
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    So the pattern is pretty clear. Historically, statute-by-statute religious exemptions have been common in American history. Liberal Justices and advocacy groups pushed, especially starting with the 1960s, for a broader regime of presumptive exemptions for religious objectors, and they got it. Conservative Justices pushed back, and eventually overturned this regime.

    Then the movement became bipartisan, as Congress tried to re-enact a broad presumptive exemption regime with RFRA and RLUIPA. And only in recent years has the opposition to religious exemptions — not just individual exemptions in individual cases, but to having RFRA-like regimes altogether — become somewhat more a liberal matter than a conservative one.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you're saying that if you forward a law that I agree with, I'm going to call it a "bad" law just to mess up your argument? That's ridiculous! I hope you'd think I was a more honest debater than that. No, I promise if you provide a law that I agree with, I won't call it a bad law and if I do call it bad law, I will fully explain why I think it's a bad law if you want. I can, right now, explain why I think prohibition is a bad law and it won't be difficult considering that it's near consensus that it was a bad law and almost no one wants to reinstate it.
    No, I'm saying that if we agree on a law you will probably just call it bad.
    IE if I find common ground, the way you have defined it, it goes in the junk law pile.
    nothing to do with your honesty, just your terms for the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But really, now that I think about it more, it doesn't matter if I think the law is good or bad. Either way, I hold that a religious exemption violates the first amendment and would not support. For bad laws, I support a GENERAL exemption (as in everyone is exempt, which of course includes religious people) but I don't support an exemption for just religious people.
    I'm not certain if you are conciedeing my point, or ..
    as to what you personally hold. It is interesting, but doesn't reflect the const. Your position showes a lack of value for your religious neighbor than our nations const reflects.
    I see no reason to accept it.

    Of course I can't make you value religion, but our nation has experienced huge benifits from it. It is an inherent part of our culture and because the gov can and has been dangerious in the past, and even used as a weapons specifically against religions
    religious practices should be protected and the gov should be limited in it's power to effect religion. Which is exactly what our const does, and attempts to do.
    Per the source above (detailing the history of this debate), our nation has long valued and seen as worth protecting religious values.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you can stick with prohibition exclusively for now. Just explain why should have been an exemption for religious people only (why we should allow wine at mass but still outlaw wine at dinner). I see no basis to agree that established and common religious practices deserve an exemption from the laws that all others must follow.
    So I'll take this from the perspective of justifying what already exists.
    1) Religious practices, or so called "acts of concience" should be protected (without a compelling gov interest per links usage), where as acts that are not a matter of concience is the proper relm of gov action. (and it is, per the links provided through the several posts) another for reading purposes
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...se-of-religion
    2) The gov should seek to protect religious inst as a whole from gov harm. Because in the past gov have been used as a weapon. An example would be the prodistants of the past would have loved to make mass illegal, as it would harm a religious rival. Thus the framers attempted to protect and limit the gov from such action. (see history links)
    3) prohibition is an example of both. Where a long standing matter of concience was attacked by the gov (or could have been absent the exemption) and a major religious practice would have been outlawed due to secular misconduct and abuse. That a specific religion was dispraportionatly harmed is a point of relevance.

    Prohibition caused harm to a specific religion (Or burdened as stated in the below link)
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    7. Does that mean that religious objectors can just stop any government program they think is religiously wrong, at least if the program isn’t “necessary to serve a compelling government interest”? No, because the objectors must also show that the program “substantially burdens” their beliefs, which basically means that

    the program requires people to do something that “is forbidden by [their] faith,”
    the program requires people not to do something that is required by their faith,
    the program requires that people violate their religious beliefs in order to get important benefits (such as unemployment compensation).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.24fd95c7b0ec

    4) Thus, the gov should provide exemptions for communion wine, and not your dinner wine.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I disagree. Any support you have offered is being currently challenged or has been defeated. Don't declare victory while the battle is still on.
    pointing out that I have supported my argument, is not a claim of victory.
    Maybe that is why you like to claim your opponent hasn't supported their position despite pages of text and relevant links?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, when you make an argument it is your burden to support it so you either need to convince me or provide support for it (if what you forward meets the burden of support, then it doesn't matter if I'm convinced - support is support).

    I have seen no solid legal principle forwarded for allowing an exemption for prohibition or any other religious exemption (any that aren't currently being challenged in debate, anyway).
    Commentary. Thanks for your opinion.
    I think it is abundantly clear that I have made a good faith attempt at supporting my positions. Your claims that it hasn't been supported would carry more weight with me personally if you would point out how my support, isn't support or doesn't apply as a rebutal, or something of substance, rather than repeating your opinion.

    Claiming I haven't supported in the face of multiple links, isn't argumentation it's posturing and ther is no rebuttal to that. I would prefer to understand your position better
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    `11`
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you are misunderstanding my meaning. Of course I'm talking about the actual practice of human sacrifice, that is the context you brought up, I haven't diverted from that.
    And I'm saying that we WOULD allow a religion that has human sacrifice as a tenet. The BELIEF is allowed. The practice isn't. So the religion would be legal.

    I'm just rebutting an argument of yours that says that this religion would not be allowed in America. The religion would be allowed.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, in the case of prohibition, the difference was that the secular act was a physical abuse of a substance, while the religious act was a long standing ritual.
    So.. there is that kind of stuff.
    Define "physical abuse of a substance" (PAOAS). If you mean drinking alcohol in and of itself is a PAOAS, then drinking wine at mass is engaging in PAOAS in a religious ceremony. If you mean drinking alcohol to the point of getting drunk (which doesn't happen at mass I assume) is PAOAS, then secular drinking of wine in small quantities should be legal as well.

    So let's say that the amount of wine that one drinks at mass and the amount that one drinks at dinner (one small glass only) is the same. I see no legal justification for allowing one and disallowing the other.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My case is supported where the free excersise clause is assumed to mean religious practices that are established and common in the U.S. Communion is one such example and perfectly applies in the instance of prohibition.
    All of which has been laid out in the thread. the only response I see from you is that your not convinced. That does not equate to it not being supported.
    But pointing out that you have not met the burden of support when you clearly have no does equate with not being supported.

    To support something you either need to make a logically valid argument based on a shared premise or you need to provide TEXT AND A LINK to external support. And from what I can tell, you've done neither. I certainly don't share your premises and I've seen no text-link from you supporting that the FEC indicates that common and established religious practice should receive special treatment when compared to less established and common religious practices.

    Maybe you did I missed it but I really doubt that's the case. So let's nip this in the bud.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the FEC indicates that established and/or common religious practices are due some kind of preferred legal treatment when compared to other religious practices.

    And of course claiming prior support will not suffice as support. If you have provided prior support, just paste it in your response to this challenge. Or provide fresh support (with text and link). Or retract this assertion by not repeating it again and we can let this point go.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I guess, I would say that the gov should value protecting religion as it is such a large part of our society, and the gov OUGHT to be limited so as to prevent it from becoming an enemy of established common religions of america.
    Basically, the const should be as it is, and the framers have been proven right in it's attempts to protect religion from the gov.
    And as I already argued, not allowing the government to give religious exemptions DOES limit the government's ability to interfere with religion. If we allow the government to give waivers to certain religious practices, then the we allow the government to give certain religions certain advantages.

    You argue that allowing ALL religions to use wine when it's outlawed in general is giving all religions the same advantage and therefore favors none. That's not true at all. It only gives advantage to the religions that use wine in their ceremonies. If religion A uses wine and religions B does not, then allowing wine only aids religions A. If you want to give waivers for a religion to use prohibited substances in their ceremonies, then you would need to give waivers for ALL illegal substances. Wine for Catholics, Marijuana for Rastafarians, Peyote for Native Americas, Magic Mushrooms for New Agers and so on. But then even that kind of waiver is giving an advantage for those religions that use illegal substances in their rituals, which gives them a unique advantage over other religions who want to perform other kinds of illegal acts in their ceremonies that don't involve illegal substances, such as human sacrifice.

    So really the only two purely neutral government position on religions wanting to include illegal activities in their ceremonies is to either ban all illegal activities or allow all illegal activities for religions. Anything else allows the government to give some religions advantages that it denies other which is giving government more control over our religions, not less.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Apparently as your understanding and Idea of "helped" has been defined out of what the gov means. Ie Specificaly excluded.
    I gave linked support for that.
    I went back over our discussion regarding "aid" and I saw no link from you in this exhange. And the rest of your comment does not make much sense to me. I see no reason to think the government definition of "help" is different than the definition as it is commonly understood.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, as it is your argument and it is not a relevant response to any of my points, I'll ignore it in the future.
    It is relevant. Ignoring a point that I make means that you don't rebut it and therefore the point stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The reason is that your dinner is not const protected, while religion is.
    No. Religion is not constitutionally protected. FREEDOM of religions is what's protected and that protection includes the right to NOT be religious. So saying that religious use of wine is more important than secular use of wine is to say that being religious is more important than not being religious and that's antithetical to the 1st amendment.

    In other words, the right to NOT be religious is just as legally protected as the right to be religious. And therefore drinking wine is secular setting is just as protected as drinking wine in a religious setting.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Legally the defined difference is that you having wine at dinner is not a matter of concience. You don't feel you are going to go to hell over it.
    But that's legally irrelevant. A Catholic will of course think that the communion use of wine is much more important than wine at dinner. But then an atheist might think that wine at communion is completely ridiculous and stupid ("drinking blood?") and therefore think that dinner at wine is the better use of wine than wine used in communion.

    And legally, these two differing opinions are equally valid. The government does NOT say that the Catholic is right and the atheist is wrong or vice versa.

    To argue that the government should respect the Catholic's opinion more is to directly argue that Catholicism should be favored over atheism. Obviously, I reject that position.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am pretty sure I have offered linked support several times. However, I could be wrong. so here it is again.
    Different link this time

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a46f378785a0
    A link by itself is not support. You will need to paste the pertinent portion of that link that supports your position.

    Obviously, just posting a link and telling me to find the information in the link that supports your position is to engage in Linkwarz. So no, you have yet to provide support from a link (as the link itself is not support).

    That being said, I did click on the link and read it a bit (which I am in no way required to do, btw) but I'm not sure how what's in there supports any particular point. I guess there were some exemptions in the past that apparently were later rejected so that does not support that we currently should have exemptions. And of course there are proposed exemptions now or maybe some that are in effect but that doesn't not support that we SHOULD have such exemptions (to argue otherwise is to engage in the Is/Ought fallacy). So again, I'm not sure how your link supports any particular point of yours. That's one reason that a link by itself does not suffice as support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, I'm saying that if we agree on a law you will probably just call it bad.
    IE if I find common ground, the way you have defined it, it goes in the junk law pile.
    nothing to do with your honesty, just your terms for the debate.
    My criteria for a bad law is a law that I SINCERELY disagree with, like prohibition. If I agree with a law, then by my criteria, it is not a bad law.

    So for me to call a law that i agree with "bad" would be to violate my own criteria for the sake of defeating your argument, which would be dishonest of me.

    So I PROMISE that if you forward a law that I sincerely agree with, I will NOT call it a bad law. If you don't believe me, then you are certainly saying that you don't trust me to be honest on this issue. And btw, I have very, very few disagreements with the common person on the goodness or badness of laws so you are pretty safe forwarding any commonly-accepted law as a good law. Really, about the only way I deviate from the popular opinion is that I'm a bit more socially libertarian than most (such as I am for legalizing all drugs, very pro-gun rights, and am for jury nullification).

    So you have no excuse to not forward a good law as an example because you think I'm just going to call it "bad". I won't.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not certain if you are conciedeing my point, or ..
    as to what you personally hold. It is interesting, but doesn't reflect the const. Your position showes a lack of value for your religious neighbor than our nations const reflects.
    Your opinion is noted. I will concern myself with rebutting this notion once you support it. In MY opinion, your position shows a lack of value for freedom of religion (by not acknowledging that the irreligious are legally the equals of the religious) than what our nations constitution reflects.

    So we each have an opinion. Moving on...

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course I can't make you value religion, but our nation has experienced huge benifits from it. It is an inherent part of our culture and because the gov can and has been dangerious in the past, and even used as a weapons specifically against religions
    Support or retract that the government has been used as a weapon in the past. I certainly have not conceded that prohibition was a weapon against the religious. In fact, I can point to multiple instances where the government has favored religion over non-religion. For example, teachers used to be allowed to lead the class in prayer which basically influences the children to favor religion over secularism.

    Until 1961, there were enforced laws barring atheists from holding public office.

    "A bookkeeper named Roy Torcaso, who happened to be an atheist, refused to declare that he believed in God in order to serve as a notary public in Maryland. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 1961 the court ruled unanimously for Mr. Torcaso, saying states could not have a “religious test” for public office."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/u...l?mcubz=1&_r=0

    And whether religion has overall been a benefit or a bane to our culture is entirely debatable but I don't want to have that debate here (that should happen in another thread if it's going to happen). For this debate, I'll take the neutral position (the good and the bad pretty much equal out) and therefore do not agree that religion has been of such benefits that it is entitled to a legal advantage over secularism. Again, if you want to debate this issue in particular, start a new thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    religious practices should be protected and the gov should be limited in it's power to effect religion. Which is exactly what our const does, and attempts to do.
    Per the source above (detailing the history of this debate), our nation has long valued and seen as worth protecting religious values.
    If you include atheism as one of the "religions" then I do agree that the constitution attempts to protect all religions. And therefore no religion should be given advantage over another and therefore Christianity should not be given advantage over secularism.

    You do agree that the 1st amendment protects one's right to not be religious as much as it protects one's right to be religious, right? Either way, that is my position. I'm saying that we OUGHT to be free to not be religious as much as we OUGHT to be free to be irreligious. And the current state of our laws agrees with me on this which is why there currently are no religious exemptions for secular law (that I'm aware of anyway).

    As I said, in the past this principle was not upheld and things like atheists being ineligible for public office was pretty common. But this does not justify any discrimination against atheists today and likewise our laws should not favor the religious over the irreligious.

    So I should ask. Is it your position that the laws SHOULD favor the religious over the irreligious? If so, we should probably just focus on this notion in this debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So I'll take this from the perspective of justifying what already exists.
    1) Religious practices, or so called "acts of concience" should be protected (without a compelling gov interest per links usage), where as acts that are not a matter of concience is the proper relm of gov action. (and it is, per the links provided through the several posts) another for reading purposes
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...se-of-religion
    2) The gov should seek to protect religious inst as a whole from gov harm. Because in the past gov have been used as a weapon. An example would be the prodistants of the past would have loved to make mass illegal, as it would harm a religious rival. Thus the framers attempted to protect and limit the gov from such action. (see history links)
    3) prohibition is an example of both. Where a long standing matter of concience was attacked by the gov (or could have been absent the exemption) and a major religious practice would have been outlawed due to secular misconduct and abuse. That a specific religion was dispraportionatly harmed is a point of relevance.
    To that I will say SUPPORT OR RETRACT that alcohol was made illegal with the intent of causing harm to a particular religion. If you can't do that, then the notion that prohibtion was wielded as a weapon to attack Catholicism is not supported and therefore point 3 fails. Again, there is a big difference between attacking something and unintentionally causing it harm.

    And also IF it were true that prohibition was instituted as a means to attack a religion, then clearly the correct course of action is to not have instituted prohibition, not institute it but give exemptions.

    For the record, I am completely against a law being instituted for the reason of attacking a religion or religions in general. Show me such a law and I will say that the law should not be implemented at all, which is a different position than saying we should institute the law but give exemptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Prohibition caused harm to a specific religion (Or burdened as stated in the below link)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.24fd95c7b0ec

    4) Thus, the gov should provide exemptions for communion wine, and not your dinner wine.
    Wrong. If you are saying that the law is bad because it attacks religion, then the law should not exist at all and therefore there should be no law against wine at communion or dinner.

    If you are going to argue that prohibition SHOULD be instituted but that communion should be exempt, you need to:
    1. Support that prohibition should be instituted
    2. Support that wine at communion should be exempt.

    So until you complete both step 1 and 2, you have not succeeded in arguing for a religious exemption for communion wine.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    pointing out that I have supported my argument, is not a claim of victory.
    Maybe that is why you like to claim your opponent hasn't supported their position despite pages of text and relevant links?
    I was wondering how long it would take before you got personal. Sigh. Well, we got pretty far this time. But let's get back on track and not make personal comments, alright?

    But I guess I need to remind you that links BY THEMSELVES are not support. You need to post the pertinent information from the link in order to use the link as support (see Linkwarz rules).

    And I'm not claiming victory because you haven't supported your position. I'm not claiming victory at all. The debate is still ongoing so OBVIOUSLY no one can claim victory. You just can't say that you've "won" if the point you are forwarding is being challenged.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think it is abundantly clear that I have made a good faith attempt at supporting my positions. Your claims that it hasn't been supported would carry more weight with me personally if you would point out how my support, isn't support or doesn't apply as a rebutal, or something of substance, rather than repeating your opinion.
    Then just look at all of my responses to your points. In each instance where I say you've not supported your position, I believe I've explained it. I'm not going to go over every single one here so I will just pick one of them.

    MT: "My case is supported where the free excersise clause is assumed to mean religious practices that are established and common in the U.S. Communion is one such example and perfectly applies in the instance of prohibition."

    You have provided absolutely no evidence that the free exercise clause says that established and common religious practices are afforded some special legal protection over religious practices that not established and common. I've seen nothing in favor of this notion beyond you saying that it is so.

    Support for this would include you providing the pertinent text from the clause itself that shows that your assessment is correct or text from an accepted source (like wikipedia or an expert who is not biased) and then the link from where that text is coming from.

    In fact, I will do that right now and support the FEC does not protect religious practices, with text and a link (pertinent parts bolded).

    TEXT:
    The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

    “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”
    In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

    So there you go. The SCOTUS ruled that the FEC does allow interference with religious practices. It even mentions human sacrifice as an example and there is NO known exemption for beliefs just on basis of being common and traditional. So I have support, with text and link, that the government does have the legal right, under the FEC, to interfere with religious practice.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Claiming I haven't supported in the face of multiple links, isn't argumentation it's posturing and ther is no rebuttal to that. I would prefer to understand your position better
    Okay. My overall position is bolded.

    My overall position is that all faiths, including atheism, should be treated equally under the law and therefore there should be no laws favoring one faith over another. So therefore the government should not be involved in deciding which faiths get special treatment and since no individual exemption will aid all faiths equally and therefore qualifies as special treatment, no individual exemptions should be given.

    As I said earlier, an exemption for wine only helps those faiths that use wine. It doesn't help the faiths that don't use wine so the exemption favors Catholics over all others.


    The only way to give out exemptions that benefit all faiths equally is to give them all no exemptions at all or give them all any exemption they want, without the government assessing whether the exemption should be allowed or not (for to reject exemptions gives those religions that don't need those exemptions special treatment) and therefore human sacrifice would qualify for exemption as well. Obviously the latter cannot happen so the only viable option is the former.
    Last edited by mican333; June 10th, 2017 at 11:55 AM.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I'm saying that we WOULD allow a religion that has human sacrifice as a tenet. The BELIEF is allowed. The practice isn't. So the religion would be legal.

    I'm just rebutting an argument of yours that says that this religion would not be allowed in America. The religion would be allowed.
    An unnecessary rebuttal as it is not my argument, you were responding to a correction, as though it was not correcting my argument.
    Curious approach.
    You should read it so as to understand that human sacrifice would be illegal, even though the religion itself would be allowed to exist in to some extent.
    The practice I was referring to was human sacrifice.. of course I'm not really versed in that religion and it's a bit made up in the thread so as far as I know the only tenant is human sacrifice.
    In which case the whole religion would be illegal to practice. (as opposed to simply believed).

    Anyway, the correction should be clear to you now. When I said the religion would be illegal, I intended to say that the religious practice of human sacrifice would be illegal, or as previously stated the made up religion
    consisting only of human sacrifice would be illegal to practice, or exercise in our nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Define "physical abuse of a substance" (PAOAS). If you mean drinking alcohol in and of itself is a PAOAS, then drinking wine at mass is engaging in PAOAS in a religious ceremony. If you mean drinking alcohol to the point of getting drunk (which doesn't happen at mass I assume) is PAOAS, then secular drinking of wine in small quantities should be legal as well.

    So let's say that the amount of wine that one drinks at mass and the amount that one drinks at dinner (one small glass only) is the same. I see no legal justification for allowing one and disallowing the other.
    Not really where I was trying to go with it. More I'm trying to say that there were two different values given. One value to wine at dinner, and another to wine at communion (and of course other religions ceremonies as well).
    The value of wine at dinner was given a lower value because it was not a matter of conscience, also it did not overly and adversely effect an established religious institution. (IE the catholic religion was being protected by the gov).

    Of course the point we are after is why should one be valued over another. To that, it is the difference between social and religious acts. That difference was recognized by the const in the form of both religious clauses.
    After all, if there is no distinction, then congress could mandate it's own version of mass without worry about violating the establishment clause.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I certainly don't share your premises and I've seen no text-link from you supporting that the FEC indicates that common and established religious practice should receive special treatment when compared to less established and common religious practices.
    You are confusing offering an argument you agree with, with a supported argument.
    Yea, you don't agree with my premises.. nobody cares. That is not the standard for a supported argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the FEC indicates that established and/or common religious practices are due some kind of preferred legal treatment when compared to other religious practices.
    My support in the past has centered around how courts have ruled
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Applying a new standard of "strict scrutiny" in various areas of civil rights law, the Court began to apply this standard to the First Amendment religion clauses as well, reading the Free Exercise Clause to require accommodation of religious conduct except where a state could show a compelling interest and no less burdensome means to achieve that end. One example was Sherbert v. Verner, where the Court overturned the state Employment Security Commission's decision to deny unemployment benefits to a practicing member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6-day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against the dictates of her religion. As Justice William Brennan stated for the majority, "to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties." This test was used through the years of the Burger Court, including particularly in the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0f7d52d8ecbc

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    But wait. Congress didn’t agree with Smith, and so it enacted — by a nearly unanimous vote — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which gave religious objectors a statutory right to exemptions (again, unless the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest). In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court said this exceeded congressional power over the states, but RFRA — pronounced “riffra” — remains in effect for the federal government.
    - To the point of the original intent (which the courts may or may not have stuck to) (new link)
    https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlya...se-of-religion
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The federal government, reasoned Jefferson, has jurisdiction over "actions only and not opinions"; it had no jurisdiction over religion, which was a matter "solely between man and his God." Further, on a facial review, the object of the First Amendment, which begins with the word "Congress", was clearly not intended to apply to the States. Rather the intent of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause was, according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, ". . . to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." 19 This is confirmed by the preliminary draft of the First Amendment proposed by James Madison to the House of Representatives in 1789: The Civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.20 According to the Secretary, Mr. Madison thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.21 In sum, the object of the First Amendment was to prevent the national government from choosing one Christian sect [denomination] over another and establishing a single national denomination.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And as I already argued, not allowing the government to give religious exemptions DOES limit the government's ability to interfere with religion. If we allow the government to give waivers to certain religious practices, then the we allow the government to give certain religions certain advantages.
    It may be cast that way, but that is not how it has been ruled in the past.

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...se-of-religion
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In its first interpretation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause, Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court confronted a federal law banning polygamy in the territories, thereby limiting the practice then required by the Mormon religion. The Court adopted the narrower reading of the right, protecting belief only and not action, relying on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Since then, however, the Court has ruled more frequently in line with the original meaning, protecting religiously motivated actions such as proselytization, Cantwell, refusing work on one's sabbath, Sherbert v. Verner (1963), choosing the education of one's children, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), and sacrificing animals at a worship service, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993).
    I am having trouble finding any reading or ruling that agrees with your take.
    When it was ruled against it was on the grounds that the actions weren't covered only belief, not that the gov would be establishing or "helping" a religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You argue that allowing ALL religions to use wine when it's outlawed in general is giving all religions the same advantage and therefore favors none. That's not true at all. It only gives advantage to the religions that use wine in their ceremonies. If religion A uses wine and religions B does not, then allowing wine only aids religions A. If you want to give waivers for a religion to use prohibited substances in their ceremonies, then you would need to give waivers for ALL illegal substances. Wine for Catholics, Marijuana for Rastafarians, Peyote for Native Americas, Magic Mushrooms for New Agers and so on. But then even that kind of waiver is giving an advantage for those religions that use illegal substances in their rituals, which gives them a unique advantage over other religions who want to perform other kinds of illegal acts in their ceremonies that don't involve illegal substances, such as human sacrifice.
    I don't think this follows at all, nor do I think it reflects any judgment or ruling on the law by any court. Why should we accept this line of reasoning?
    Also, why should we equate illegal substances, with murder?

    First, there is no reason to accept the premise in your use of religion A (that uses wine) and religion B (that doesn't) is being harmed or helped or given and advantage over one another. I see no reason to think any court has agreed with this reasoning.
    Exactly what advantage do you get for making a product I don't use legal for you? if anything it puts us on more equal footing because we are both able to practice freely.

    Second
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you want to give waivers for a religion to use prohibited substances in their ceremonies, then you would need to give waivers for ALL illegal substances. Wine for Catholics, Marijuana for Rastafarians, Peyote for Native Americas, Magic Mushrooms for New Agers and so on.
    Yes I agree.
    So did the court
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...72008817235086
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    RLUIPA is the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens, consistent with this Court's precedents. Ten years before RLUIPA's enactment, the Court held, in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 878-882 (1990), that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not inhibit enforcement of otherwise valid laws of general application that incidentally burden religious conduct. In particular, we ruled that the Free Exercise Clause did not bar Oregon from enforcing its blanket ban on peyote possession with no allowance for sacramental use of the drug. Accordingly, the State could deny unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because of their religiously inspired peyote use. Id., at 874, 890. The Court recognized, however, that the political branches could shield religious exercise through legislative accommodation, for example, by making an exception to proscriptive drug laws for sacramental peyote use. Id., at 890.
    Basically the gov could give peyote religions an exemption and not violate the establishment clause.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then even that kind of waiver is giving an advantage for those religions that use illegal substances in their rituals, which gives them a unique advantage over other religions who want to perform other kinds of illegal acts in their ceremonies that don't involve illegal substances, such as human sacrifice.
    There are some advantages to religion inherent to our const. For example a religion that sought the destruction of America, would end up an enemy not protected.
    There is no problem with that. The line offered and expressed in a couple of quotes is that of a compelling national interest. Like if a religious ritual disturbed the peice.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So really the only two purely neutral government position on religions wanting to include illegal activities in their ceremonies is to either ban all illegal activities or allow all illegal activities for religions. Anything else allows the government to give some religions advantages that it denies other which is giving government more control over our religions, not less.
    As pointed out the gov is not called to be neutral it is partially responsible to protect the free excersise of religion.
    That is evidenced in the links above. Currently enshrined in the religious freedome act.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0f7d52d8ecbc
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    But in Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), the court seemed to unanimously accept the notion that, when it comes to exemptions from generally applicable laws, the government may often create such exemptions only for religious objectors. And such religious objector exemptions have been a longstanding tradition throughout American history. So while any exemptions have to be available to all denominations that have a particular belief — a sacramental wine exemption from an alcohol ban, for instance, can’t apply only to Catholics and not Jews — they can probably be given just to religious objectors and not to those who have nonreligious reasons.
    I'm going to consider 2005 recent.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I went back over our discussion regarding "aid" and I saw no link from you in this exhange. And the rest of your comment does not make much sense to me. I see no reason to think the government definition of "help" is different than the definition as it is commonly understood.
    The linked support I refer to is the language used by the courts of history. Your view simply isn't found in any rulings I have seen.
    Such as the Peyote reference above, you have argued that it "helps" the religion, but the court doesn't share that view at all, and points to the specific ability of the congress to make exactly the kind of exemption you say is unconst.
    So it clearly isn't unconst. (or at least that argument has more support atm).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. Religion is not constitutionally protected. FREEDOM of religions is what's protected and that protection includes the right to NOT be religious. So saying that religious use of wine is more important than secular use of wine is to say that being religious is more important than not being religious and that's antithetical to the 1st amendment.
    In other words, the right to NOT be religious is just as legally protected as the right to be religious. And therefore drinking wine is secular setting is just as protected as drinking wine in a religious setting.
    It is not. evidenced by how various religious act has been treated in the past.
    Re above link "gov may often creat exemptions for only religious and not non-religious. Prohibition was one of the listed examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But that's legally irrelevant. A Catholic will of course think that the communion use of wine is much more important than wine at dinner. But then an atheist might think that wine at communion is completely ridiculous and stupid ("drinking blood?") and therefore think that dinner at wine is the better use of wine than wine used in communion.

    And legally, these two differing opinions are equally valid. The government does NOT say that the Catholic is right and the atheist is wrong or vice versa.

    To argue that the government should respect the Catholic's opinion more is to directly argue that Catholicism should be favored over atheism. Obviously, I reject that position.
    It is legally relevant, as it isspecifically the acts of concience that give the "non religious" their protection under the establishment and free excersise clause.

    http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...objection.html
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), a unanimous Court construed the language of the exemption limiting the status to those who by “religious training and belief” (that is, those who believed in a “Supreme Being”), to mean that a person must have some belief which occupies in his life the place or role which the traditional concept of God occupies in the orthodox believer. After the “Supreme Being” clause was deleted, a plurality in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), construed the religion requirement as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds. Justice Harlan concurred on constitutional grounds, believing that the statute was clear that Congress had intended to restrict conscientious objection status to those persons who could demonstrate a traditional religious foundation for their beliefs and that this was impermissible under the Establishment Clause. Id. at 344. The dissent by Justices White and Stewart and Chief Justice Burger rejected both the constitutional and the statutory basis. 398 U.S. at 367.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    A link by itself is not support. You will need to paste the pertinent portion of that link that supports your position.
    The instance you are objecting to, did in fact have the quoted portion provided. Still, there are other places where I could have quoted.
    on the whole, I have offered enought for your objection to be a non issue, but I think you will find this post more comprehensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So again, I'm not sure how your link supports any particular point of yours. That's one reason that a link by itself does not suffice as support.
    well, when I do quote it.. your confusion is confusing. It's easy to miss with such large posts so no worries.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My criteria for a bad law is a law that I SINCERELY disagree with, like prohibition. If I agree with a law, then by my criteria, it is not a bad law.

    So for me to call a law that i agree with "bad" would be to violate my own criteria for the sake of defeating your argument, which would be dishonest of me.
    I see no reason to subject myself to your whim as a standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I PROMISE that if you forward a law that I sincerely agree with, I will NOT call it a bad law. If you don't believe me, then you are certainly saying that you don't trust me to be honest on this issue. And btw, I have very, very few disagreements with the common person on the goodness or badness of laws so you are pretty safe forwarding any commonly-accepted law as a good law. Really, about the only way I deviate from the popular opinion is that I'm a bit more socially libertarian than most (such as I am for legalizing all drugs, very pro-gun rights, and am for jury nullification).

    So you have no excuse to not forward a good law as an example because you think I'm just going to call it "bad". I won't.
    I'm sticking with the point of good and bad are irrlevant, as the gov can pass both, and religious freedoms should be protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Support or retract that the government has been used as a weapon in the past.
    There are two ways in which this was meant.

    The first is that governments in general were useds as a weapon against religions. (I have a hard time thinking you are challenging this aspect.
    After all, it was this motivation the moved our founders to make the establishment clause to begin with. If this is the aspect you are challenging, then let me know and I'll provide support for a short history lesson.
    This point is supported above where I showed the founders were protecting one christian sect from another with the establishment clause. That was directly related to gov's history.

    The second aspect is that our gov has been dangerious to religions. Prohabition had the potential to be detrimental to Catholics and other religions. It wasn't because they recieved an exemption.
    So that is kind of a grey area. However, I have a hard time believing you are actually challenging this point as well, because you have appealed to it in your arguments. Namely that the religious practices of human sacrifice should be outlawed by the gov.
    That is what Is meant in this second sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I certainly have not conceded that prohibition was a weapon against the religious. In fact, I can point to multiple instances where the government has favored religion over non-religion. For example, teachers used to be allowed to lead the class in prayer which basically influences the children to favor religion over secularism.
    Yes, I agree, but I don't see the relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And whether religion has overall been a benefit or a bane to our culture is entirely debatable but I don't want to have that debate here (that should happen in another thread if it's going to happen). For this debate, I'll take the neutral position (the good and the bad pretty much equal out) and therefore do not agree that religion has been of such benefits that it is entitled to a legal advantage over secularism. Again, if you want to debate this issue in particular, start a new thread.
    Here my argument rests on the fact that our nation and our population has valued religion so as to specifically protect it.
    I do believe that reasoning is because it has been so essential to a healthy functioning nation. However, that could be false, and the population still value it. So I don't see the need to go down that road.

    The question would be, do you recognize that our nation does and has in the past valued religion so as to make attempts to specifically protect it? (The support is all over in the support provded here).


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you include atheism as one of the "religions" then I do agree that the constitution attempts to protect all religions. And therefore no religion should be given advantage over another and therefore Christianity should not be given advantage over secularism.

    You do agree that the 1st amendment protects one's right to not be religious as much as it protects one's right to be religious, right? Either way, that is my position. I'm saying that we OUGHT to be free to not be religious as much as we OUGHT to be free to be irreligious. And the current state of our laws agrees with me on this which is why there currently are no religious exemptions for secular law (that I'm aware of anyway).

    As I said, in the past this principle was not upheld and things like atheists being ineligible for public office was pretty common. But this does not justify any discrimination against atheists today and likewise our laws should not favor the religious over the irreligious.

    So I should ask. Is it your position that the laws SHOULD favor the religious over the irreligious? If so, we should probably just focus on this notion in this debate.
    I agree with all this.
    I don't think the gov should "favor" religion over non religion, but I do think the gov ought to specifically protect religion, which it does.
    After all, the "free excersise" clause is specifically about religion. I think the balance between the establishment clause, and the free excersise clause is perfectly struck in such instances as the conciencious objectors cases.
    Where the non religious, and the religious have equal access to a principle, but religion is protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    To that I will say SUPPORT OR RETRACT that alcohol was made illegal with the intent of causing harm to a particular religion. If you can't do that, then the notion that prohibtion was wielded as a weapon to attack Catholicism is not supported and therefore point 3 fails. Again, there is a big difference between attacking something and unintentionally causing it harm.

    And also IF it were true that prohibition was instituted as a means to attack a religion, then clearly the correct course of action is to not have instituted prohibition, not institute it but give exemptions.

    For the record, I am completely against a law being instituted for the reason of attacking a religion or religions in general. Show me such a law and I will say that the law should not be implemented at all, which is a different position than saying we should institute the law but give exemptions.
    I am not claiming that the gov was trying to harm catholics or religion specifically.
    The claim is that the founders made no distinction between accidental and purposefull assaults on religious liberty. The effect of destroying religious liberty (IE free excersise) is what is meant.
    Your objection here seems to be mostly semantical. like you don't like the wording of "attacked", when the point is the effect is what was being protected and should be protected.

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...se-of-religion
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Because it is now accepted that the Free Exercise of Religion Clause protects religiously motivated conduct as well as belief, the most important modern issue has been whether the protection only runs against laws that target religion itself for restriction, or, more broadly, whether the clause sometimes requires an exemption from a generally applicable law. To take just one of many examples, must an Orthodox Jewish military officer, who is religiously obligated to wear a yarmulke, be exempted from a general rule forbidding all servicemen to wear anything other than official headgear?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Wrong. If you are saying that the law is bad because it attacks religion, then the law should not exist at all and therefore there should be no law against wine at communion or dinner.

    If you are going to argue that prohibition SHOULD be instituted but that communion should be exempt, you need to:
    1. Support that prohibition should be instituted
    2. Support that wine at communion should be exempt.

    So until you complete both step 1 and 2, you have not succeeded in arguing for a religious exemption for communion wine.
    I don't think that if a law interfers with religion it shouldn't be passed at all.
    So I won't be taking this road.
    I also reject the notion that I must show a law to be good, in order to justify a religious exemption.
    The point of the religious clauses were to protect against good and bad laws. (good and bad being subjective terms evidencd by your personal opinion being the standard for what is good)
    Suport
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN POST 62
    My criteria for a bad law is a law that I SINCERELY disagree with,
    What if I were to say that i sincerely agreed with prohibition? Is it thus an example of a good law consistent with my argumnet?
    No, good and bad is irrelevant. What about the population at large at the time, they certainly thought it a "good" law and that belief was sufficient to make it a const amendment.
    I don't see anything comprable in our culture today. Yea public winds shifted and eventually it was seen as "bad" and thus repealed (convention of states I think).

    My position is more like, it doesn't matter what people think is good or bad, religion is and should be protected by our const.
    One example you would probably agree with is that the gov can't outlaw a specific religion. That is at least some level of religious protection.
    Where the rubber meets the road here is in regards to religious practices, and to what extent religion is protected and how to balance that with gov role of passing laws.

    History has shown us that it isn't really clear cut (see below for support)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So there you go. The SCOTUS ruled that the FEC does allow interference with religious practices. It even mentions human sacrifice as an example and there is NO known exemption for beliefs just on basis of being common and traditional. So I have support, with text and link, that the government does have the legal right, under the FEC, to interfere with religious practice.
    That view was reversed (per my quotes above) so.. not quite.
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...se-of-religion
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Whether religious exemptions from generally applicable laws are ever mandated by the free exercise concept has been the central question in this area for many years. After rejecting constitutionally mandated exemptions for many years, the Supreme Court switched course and exempted religious claimants from generally applicable laws in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My overall position is that all faiths, including atheism, should be treated equally under the law and therefore there should be no laws favoring one faith over another. So therefore the government should not be involved in deciding which faiths get special treatment and since no individual exemption will aid all faiths equally and therefore qualifies as special treatment, no individual exemptions should be given.
    The point at contention is "no individual exemption will aid all faiths equally". I see at pretty well established in this post that no court has used that reasoning, and there are several instances where specific exemptions were given.
    Such as the swearing in exemptions for the mormans.. or was it Amish..

    Quote Originally Posted by link
    The legal background also includes accommodations made by colonial and state legislatures for specific religious practices. Virtually all states by 1789 allowed Quakers to testify or vote by an affirmation rather than an oath; several colonies had exempted Quakers and Mennonites from service in the militia; and there was a patchwork of other exemptions throughout the states. Supporters of the narrower view of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause, such as Professor Hamburger, argue that these examples imply only that specific statutory exemptions may be granted by legislative grace. But advocates of the broader interpretation, such as Professor McConnell, infer that the Founding generation thought that exemption from the law was the appropriate response to conflicts between legal and religious duties, that is, that exemption was part of the meaning of "free exercise" so long as the religious activity did not harm public peace or others' rights.
    It was Quackers.. I was waaay off.

    and this
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f21726c1652c
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    But in Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), the court seemed to unanimously accept the notion that, when it comes to exemptions from generally applicable laws, the government may often create such exemptions only for religious objectors.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The only way to give out exemptions that benefit all faiths equally is to give them all no exemptions at all or give them all any exemption they want, without the government assessing whether the exemption should be allowed or not (for to reject exemptions gives those religions that don't need those exemptions special treatment) and therefore human sacrifice would qualify for exemption as well. Obviously the latter cannot happen so the only viable option is the former.
    This is a false dilemma. There is a third option which is to use the historical standard of a "compelling public.. whatever wording they used". (it's all over the quotes provided.)
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    More support that the 'free excersise" clause is taken to mean that religion is exempt from some laws.


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    I'm going to present three arguments which cover a few points that will be raised and they will be referred to as needed. You don't need to respond to them but feel free to.

    ARGUMENT 1
    One thing to keep in mind that this is an “ought” debate (as in there ought or ought not be religious exemptions), not an “is” so it not the case that whatever the law is is what the law ought to be. In some of our prior debates, you have rejected the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade and that’s a legitimate position in the debate of whether abortion should be uniformly legal. That’s not to say the legal ruling of Roe is irrelevant to a debate just because you disagree with it – we can both look at the reasoning as a focal point to debate what the abortion laws SHOULD be, but you are certainly not obliged to concede that abortion should be legal just because the current legal reasoning in our society says as much. Now, if a legal matter is not particularly controversial and has been long-settled (such as the position that murder should be illegal), then I would say it’s difficult to mount an argument contrary to current law, but when the issue is controversial, such as it is with abortion and (more to the point) religious exemptions, just pointing out how the courts has ruled does not, in and of itself, support that the laws should be anything in particular. So while I will sincerely give you credit for properly supporting on numerous occasions what the status of religious exemptions is or has been, this does not, in and of itself, support that religious exemptions should be given.

    ARGUMENT 2
    Appealing to old laws definitely is not valid support for how the laws should be. “Was/Ought” is even weaker than “Is/Ought”. On reason is that oftentimes old rulings have been reversed in more recent times. You brought up religious exemptions for Quakers from serving in the military as an example of a legal religious exemption. But that’s no longer a legal religious exemption. In the 60s, it was ruled that one does not need to be religious to be given conscientious objector status so nowadays anyone those without religion can do that so it’s no longer a valid example of a religious exemption.

    Also, as I pointed out, our laws used to allow atheists to be barred from office. So I would say that prior legal reasoning was often not valid by today's standards. It doesn't mean that it's all irrelevant but no one is under any obligation to agree that older rulings reflect what the laws should be nowadays.

    ARGUMENT 3
    You argued earlier, and I conceded, that for legal arguments Atheism is a “religion” so for all intents and purposes, I am including atheism as a religion in this debate and therefore to say that “religion should be protected” means that both Christianity and atheism are to be protected equally along with all other religions and beliefs regarding God. So I will argue as if Atheism is a religion at all times. Again, this position has been supported by you so it is an accepted premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not really where I was trying to go with it. More I'm trying to say that there were two different values given. One value to wine at dinner, and another to wine at communion (and of course other religions ceremonies as well).
    The value of wine at dinner was given a lower value because it was not a matter of conscience, also it did not overly and adversely effect an established religious institution. (IE the catholic religion was being protected by the gov).

    Of course the point we are after is why should one be valued over another. To that, it is the difference between social and religious acts. That difference was recognized by the const in the form of both religious clauses.
    I don’t see how the religious clauses say that one is to be protected over the other. As I established, the Free Exercise Clause does not forbid the government from interfering with religious practices so it definitely allows for banning an religious practice if it conflicts with secular law.

    Obviously, the state can ban human sacrifice even though it might interfere with a religious ceremony so an action having religious significance does not inherently afford it exemption from illegality. In this respect, I see no difference between human sacrifice or drinking wine if they are outlawed (I obviously agree with one law but not the other but that makes no difference is whether the activity can be outlawed or whether an exemption should be given).

    And it’s CERTAINLY just a matter of opinion that wine at mass is better than wine at dinner or vice versa. A religious person can have the opinion that mass is an extremely good and important event and is clearly better use of wine than at dinner. Conversely, an atheist can say that religion is a harmful delusion and therefore drinking wine at mass is actually a harmful activity for it’s aiding in perpetuating a harmful delusion and therefore wine at dinner is a better use for wine. So who is right? From the government’s perspective, there is no answer to that question. If it agrees with Catholic, then it is saying that Catholicism is correct where Atheism is wrong. If it agrees with that Atheist, then it is saying that Atheism is correct where Catholicism is wrong. Neither is an acceptable position for the government to take so it cannot take the position that wine at Mass is better than wine at dinner. To give an exemption to one but not the other is indeed putting one religion above the other (given that both Catholicism and Atheism are religions).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are confusing offering an argument you agree with, with a supported argument.
    Yea, you don't agree with my premises.. nobody cares. That is not the standard for a supported argument.
    But it is a standard for denying that your argument is supported. If I agree with your premise and you then make an argument that logically flows from that premise, you have supported your argument. If I don’t agree with your premise, then you can’t support your argument that way, although you can support your argument other ways (like with a link and text).

    And while I acknowledge that you have provided link and text in an attempt to support your argument, I see nothing in the text that supports the position that established and/or common religious practices are due some kind of preferred legal treatment when compared to other religious practices.

    Please bold the section(s) of the text that support your position.

    And per my ARGUMENT 1, even showing that a court did rule in such a fashion does not mean that the ruling is correct and I must concede the issue. Of course you are free to adopt the legal reasoning of any particular ruling to support your arguments but I’m not obliged to agree with a ruling just because it was made.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Exactly what advantage do you get for making a product I don't use legal for you? if anything it puts us on more equal footing because we are both able to practice freely.
    It still denies you the right to use the product. If you choose to never speak, then it might not make any practical difference if I have the right to free speech and you don’t but nonetheless, I have a right that you don’t have and therefore we are not treated equally under the law. And the same goes for consuming wine. Even if you don’t want to drink any wine, if I’m allowed to do so and you are not, then I have a legal advantage over you.

    And if you want to drink wine but aren’t allowed to, then it’s an actual advantage to give me the right to drink wine. And some atheists want to drink wine. So this clearly gives Catholics an advantage over atheists.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Basically the gov could give peyote religions an exemption and not violate the
    establishment clause.
    But that’s one of the three I mentioned. What about marijuana and magic mushrooms?





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There are some advantages to religion inherent to our const. For example a religion that sought the destruction of America, would end up an enemy not protected
    There is no problem with that. The line offered and expressed in a couple of quotes is that of a compelling national interest. Like if a religious ritual disturbed the peice.
    But Prohibition was considered a Compelling national interest at the time that it was passed – it was considered so important that it was a constitutional amendment.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As pointed out the gov is not called to be neutral it is partially responsible to protect the free excersise of religion.
    Protecting the free exercise of religion IS neutral as in there is no preference in which religion should be afforded protection. And clearly as the law is currently practiced, one has just as much right to not be religious as they have the right to be religions. So the government IS (or should be) neutral when it comes to Catholicism versus Atheism. They are equally deserving of protection so the government is neutral when it comes to protecting one over the other.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Such as the Peyote reference above, you have argued that it "helps" the religion, but the court doesn't share that view at all, and points to the specific ability of the congress to make exactly the kind of exemption you say is unconst.
    So it clearly isn't unconst. (or at least that argument has more support atm).
    First off, I don’t see any court rulings that directly contradict what I said. As far as I can tell, the specific thing that I am saying has not been addressed by the court at all.

    And second, per ARGUMENT 1, what a court has ruled does not necessarily mean that my argument is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is not. evidenced by how various religious act has been treated in the past.
    Re above link "gov may often creat exemptions for only religious and not non-religious. Prohibition was one of the listed examples.
    See ARGUMENT 2. It used to be fine to bar atheists from public office. That doesn’t mean it’s right and it doesn’t mean I’m wrong. You will have to present something other than just pointing out that others disagree with my assessment to rebut it (just like I can’t dismiss your criticism of Roe by pointing out that it’s still the law of the land).

    But as I re-stated this argument in this thread somewhere above, I won’t repeat it here.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is legally relevant, as it isspecifically the acts of concience that give the "non religious" their protection under the establishment and free excersise clause.
    Doesn’t that help my argument? In other words, it was ruled that it doesn’t matter if the basis of conscientious objection is secular or religious. Both are equally protected in this respect so it doesn’t matter if one is religious or not.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There are two ways in which this was meant.

    The first is that governments in general were useds as a weapon against religions. (I have a hard time thinking you are challenging this aspect.
    After all, it was this motivation the moved our founders to make the establishment clause to begin with. If this is the aspect you are challenging, then let me know and I'll provide support for a short history lesson.
    This point is supported above where I showed the founders were protecting one christian sect from another with the establishment clause. That was directly related to gov's history.
    Well, obviously we are talking about OUR government, not a foreign government so as this example is not about our government, it’s kind of irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second aspect is that our gov has been dangerious to religions. Prohabition had the potential to be detrimental to Catholics and other religions. It wasn't because they recieved an exemption.
    So that is kind of a grey area. However, I have a hard time believing you are actually challenging this point as well, because you have appealed to it in your arguments. Namely that the religious practices of human sacrifice should be outlawed by the gov.
    But I’m challenging you to support that OUR government has been used to attack religion in the past. Attacks are intentional. If you swing a baseball bat with the intent of hitting someone, you attacked him. If you accidentally hit the catcher while swinging at the ball, you did not attack him. While prohibition did have a detrimental effect on a certain religious practice, that was not the intent of prohibition and therefore that cannot be considered an attack on religion. And I’m not splitting hairs. The government intentionally targeting a religion is a very serious thing, blatantly unconstitutional, and something I am uniformly opposed to (I can’t think of a realistic scenario where I would agree with doing it). So until you show that our government has been used as a weapon to attack religion in the past, I consider this point to be unsupported and therefore any argument that is based on this notion is also unsupported.

    Well, if we count atheism as a religion, then I guess we could say that our government has attacked religion (such as barring atheists from office).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here my argument rests on the fact that our nation and our population has valued religion so as to specifically protect it.
    I do believe that reasoning is because it has been so essential to a healthy functioning nation. However, that could be false, and the population still value it. So I don't see the need to go down that road.

    The question would be, do you recognize that our nation does and has in the past valued religion so as to make attempts to specifically protect it? (The support is all over in the support provded here).
    Sure. In the past, they even banned atheist from public office. And I would say that that is clearly wrong so the people were wrong in that instance. So unless we are going to use the appeal to popularity fallacy, the issue of people approving of religion in the past or present is kind of irrelevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I agree with all this.
    I don't think the gov should "favor" religion over non religion, but I do think the gov ought to specifically protect religion, which it does.
    After all, the "free excersise" clause is specifically about religion. I think the balance between the establishment clause, and the free excersise clause is perfectly struck in such instances as the conciencious objectors cases.

    Where the non religious, and the religious have equal access to a principle, but religion is protected.
    Per ARGUMENT 3, Atheism is also a religion so there really is no “non-religion”. And if you think the government should protect Christians over Atheists, then you are advocating that the government favor one over the other.

    Yes, I know a Catholic mass is different than an Atheist dinner party but to say that one is better than the other in any way is to favor one over the other. And there is no objective standard to say that one is better or more important. One has to actually have greater respect for Christian beliefs than atheist beliefs before one can say that Christian gathering is more important. Of course I think that the Christian gathering should be protected but I think it’s no less important to protect the right of Atheists to gather for whatever reason they choose (barring illegal activity).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not claiming that the gov was trying to harm catholics or religion specifically.
    The claim is that the founders made no distinction between accidental and purposefull assaults on religious liberty.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this claim. Your link discusses the issue but there I nothing in there that said that the two things are considered the same.

    As I argued the “attacked” issue above, I won’t respond further.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I also reject the notion that I must show a law to be good, in order to justify a religious exemption.
    The point of the religious clauses were to protect against good and bad laws. (good and bad being subjective terms evidencd by your personal opinion being the standard for what is good).
    I can support that any law that I consider to be bad is indeed bad so I’m not relying on my personal opinion. And the issue isn’t what I think is a bad law but what YOU think is a bad law.

    To say that a law should have a religious exemption is to say that only the religious people should be exempt from the law. If you want everyone to be exempt from the law, then you don't want a religious exemption but a general exemption. And it stands to reason that you would want a general exemption for bad law (assuming you do agree that bad laws should not be enforced).

    So quite simply, if you are for a religious exemption for prohibition, it is your position that if someone has wine for dinner, they SHOULD be prosecuted for it (since what they are doing is not covered by the exemption). Now, if one thinks that prohibition is a bad law, then they would say that both Catholic Mass and a dinner party should not be subject to prosecution and therefore they don't want a religious exemption but a GENERAL exemption.

    So if one thinks that prohibition is a bad law, they would want a general exemption and therefore not want a religious exemption.

    So one would not advocate a religious exemptions for bad laws unless they actually favor having bad laws enforced on the non-religious (which doesn't make much sense).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point at contention is "no individual exemption will aid all faiths equally". I see at pretty well established in this post that no court has used that reasoning, and there are several instances where specific exemptions were given.
    Such as the swearing in exemptions for the mormans.. or was it Amish..
    And then it was ruled that atheists were likewise exempt so this was an instance where all faiths were treated equally. And per ARGUMENT 1, it doesn’t matter if this court or that agrees or disagrees just like your abortion arguments aren’t invalidated just because the courts currently aren’t on your side. So I don’t consider my point to be rebutted so I will repeat it.

    My overall position is that all faiths, including atheism, should be treated equally under the law and therefore there should be no laws favoring one faith over another. So therefore the government should not be involved in deciding which faiths get special treatment and since no individual exemption will aid all faiths equally and therefore qualifies as special treatment, no individual exemptions should be given.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is a false dilemma. There is a third option which is to use the historical standard of a "compelling public.. whatever wording they used". (it's all over the quotes provided.)
    That sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy. In the past they definitely were not in favor of protecting all faiths equally (if we include atheism as a faith). So I will repeat my argument.

    The only way to give out exemptions that benefit all faiths equally is to give them all no exemptions at all or give them all any exemption they want, without the government assessing whether the exemption should be allowed or not (for to reject exemptions gives those religions that don't need those exemptions special treatment) and therefore human sacrifice would qualify for exemption as well. Obviously the latter cannot happen so the only viable option is the former.
    Last edited by mican333; June 12th, 2017 at 04:05 PM.

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you concede that baking and selling a cake does not necessarily create a message (if one does not know the baker's position when he sells a cake, then the baker has delivered no message).

    Therefore requiring one to bake a cake does not force that person to deliver a message and therefore is not a 1st amendment violation.




    But the message that the baker was sending when he refused to sell the gay couple the cake was not the reason he was punished. If he refused to sell the wedding cake to a gay couple a different reason than the one he stated, he would still have broken the law and been subject to a fine.

    So the particular message he was sending was irrelevant to whether he was punished and therefore it could not be reasoned that he was punished for his message.

    An analogy would be the movie Seven. The killer was definitely sending a message with the series of murders, but he wasn't being chased because he was sending a message but because he was killing people. Likewise the baker was not punished for sending a message but for refusing to sell wedding cake to a gay couple.
    Whether you know I am acting to express an opinion or view is irrelevant to my ability to do so. When you force the baker to make a cake for a specific event, then you have taken away his right to choose to express himself by either baking or not baking the cake.

    The fact is that the baker was expressing his religious/moral views by not making the wedding cake. You can offer any justification you like for refusing his free speech, but that is the impact. In the movie Seven, the right to life trumped one's right to freedom of expression. So, which right are you promoting above freedom of expression in the case of the baker?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When you force the baker to make a cake for a specific event, then you have taken away his right to choose to express himself by either baking or not baking the cake.
    That's only true if one holds that baking a cake is the same thing as sending a message. In your last post you conceded that baking a cake is not necessarily the same thing as sending a message.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The fact is that the baker was expressing his religious/moral views by not making the wedding cake. You can offer any justification you like for refusing his free speech, but that is the impact.
    His free speech was not refused nor was he punished because he was expressing his views.

    What he was or was not "saying" had absolutely no bearing on his punishment. He was punished for his action, not what he was trying to say by performing that action. Just like the killer in Seven was not being chased for the message he was delivering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In the movie Seven, the right to life trumped one's right to freedom of expression. So, which right are you promoting above freedom of expression in the case of the baker?
    That's a question, not an argument. If you seek to argue that there is no reason to have the kind of law that lead to the punishment of the baker, it is your burden to make such an argument, not my burden to defend the law before you attack it.
    Last edited by mican333; June 12th, 2017 at 04:16 PM.

  8. #68
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's only true if one holds that baking a cake is the same thing as sending a message. In your last post you conceded that baking a cake is not necessarily the same thing as sending a message.
    A message is whatever someone wishes to express. If that is selling/not selling a cake, then that is the message. It does not HAVE TO be a message. However, in this case, it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    His free speech was not refused nor was he punished because he was expressing his views.


    What he was or was not "saying" had absolutely no bearing on his punishment. He was punished for his action, not what he was trying to say by performing that action. Just like the killer in Seven was not being chased for the message he was delivering.
    You have repeated this twice now. I've rebutted the argument the first time. So, simply repeating your claim is not a valid rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's a question, not an argument. If you seek to argue that there is no reason to have the kind of law that lead to the punishment of the baker, it is your burden to make such an argument, not my burden to defend the law before you attack it.
    Well, since you decided to drop my argument, you can either concede that we have two competing interests or you can go back and offer a rebuttal. If you concede that there are two competing interests at stake, then this question asks you to prioritize them.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    ARGUMENT 1
    One thing to keep in mind that this is an “ought” debate (as in there ought or ought not be religious exemptions), not an “is” so it not the case that whatever the law is is what the law ought to be. In some of our prior debates, you have rejected the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade and that’s a legitimate position in the debate of whether abortion should be uniformly legal. That’s not to say the legal ruling of Roe is irrelevant to a debate just because you disagree with it – we can both look at the reasoning as a focal point to debate what the abortion laws SHOULD be, but you are certainly not obliged to concede that abortion should be legal just because the current legal reasoning in our society says as much. Now, if a legal matter is not particularly controversial and has been long-settled (such as the position that murder should be illegal), then I would say it’s difficult to mount an argument contrary to current law, but when the issue is controversial, such as it is with abortion and (more to the point) religious exemptions, just pointing out how the courts has ruled does not, in and of itself, support that the laws should be anything in particular. So while I will sincerely give you credit for properly supporting on numerous occasions what the status of religious exemptions is or has been, this does not, in and of itself, support that religious exemptions should be given.
    Well, not quite IMO.
    You may feel the burden to argue what "ought" to be, but he question I am tasked with answer is "How".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN FROM op
    I'm kind of at a loss to figure out how "Religious Exemption" laws can be considered anything other than a clear and obvious violation of the 1st amendment.
    Bold for emphasis

    I think I have answered that pretty thoroughly.

    The first answer is to value religion over secular, which our gov does and has, and does and I supported that. (thanks for recognizing)
    That while atheism is protected under religion, a clear distinction is made between an atheist act, and a "secular" act. (like your dinner example, is not an atheist religious act, it is just secular, as a comparison prayer has been ruled to be a "secular" status as it has been practiced for so long, hence prayer allowed before congress and what not (that was in one of my links if I "Need" to quote it)
    Second it is to distinguish what the limit is so that things like human sacrifice is not covered (as the first ruling on the issue feared) that answer is found in the balance of religious freedom (not secular freedom) with the compelling gov interests test.


    Beyond that, you are right we are venturing into the "Ought" territory, and I have made "ought" claims, but that is a distraction from the main point and question I was attempting to answer.
    I did that in post 51 with my new line argument. My bad for losing focus on the main question.


    Many of the distinctions you have made, are not found by the courts as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean it "should" be your way or the courts, but it does answer the "How" question fully IMO.
    You do have some curious reasoning in the post overall. I don't find them to contradict he "How" answers offered. They are much more in line with the "ought" argument line.

    So, I would say I withdraw the "ought" argument to stand behind the "how" reasoning.

    I don't particularly find our courts or gov bound by logic in any way, and the Ought argument would be one to try and convince you.. and I don't really have any illusions to that

    So, have I answered "how", even if you disagree and think it ought to be some other way that it currently is?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    A message is whatever someone wishes to express. If that is selling/not selling a cake, then that is the message. It does not HAVE TO be a message. However, in this case, it is.
    Situationally, ANY illegal action that one could take can be seen as "sending a message". One can run past a stop sign to "send a message" against traffic laws. So in respects to free speech issues, the law that punished the baker for refusing to sell a cake is no more an infringement on his right to free speech than giving someone a driving ticket is an infringement on this right to free speech.

    So neither of these laws are, in and of themselves, an infringement on free speech. The fact that one can break a law in order to send a message does not reasonably absolve them from receiving punishment for breaking the law nor does it make the law itself a threat to free speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You have repeated this twice now. I've rebutted the argument the first time. So, simply repeating your claim is not a valid rebuttal.
    No, I rebutted your argument that his right to free speech was infringed upon. If one is punished for speaking, then they were punished for engaging in free speech. The baker was not punished because of the message he was sending. If he had refused to sell the cake for a reason that had nothing to do with sending a message, his punishment would have been exactly the same. Since what he was saying was completely irrelevant to the punishment he received, one cannot reasonably claim that he was punished for his speech.

    If you want to rebut this, you will need to argue that he WAS punished for what he was saying - which means he was punished FOR his message, not punished for something else while delivering his message..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Well, since you decided to drop my argument, you can either concede that we have two competing interests or you can go back and offer a rebuttal. If you concede that there are two competing interests at stake, then this question asks you to prioritize them.
    And as I said, questions are not argument. If you want to mount an argument regarding the two competing interests, then present your argument and I will address it. If you have no argument regarding this issue, then I have no response to this issue either.

    All I'm saying here is that if you want to debate this particular issue, then present an argument. Asking me to present my own argument regarding this issue first is shifting the burden.
    Last edited by mican333; June 13th, 2017 at 03:47 PM.

  11. #71
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, not quite IMO.
    You may feel the burden to argue what "ought" to be, but he question I am tasked with answer is "How".
    No, if you are challenging the OP, you are tasked with rebutting the primary argument of the OP, which is:

    "But allowing a law to stay on the book and give waivers ONLY to those who wish to violate it for religious reasons is clearly giving religious people a legal benefit that is not given to non-religious people and therefore is a clear violation of the 1st amendment."

    When I say I don't see how it's constitutional, I'm just stating that I don't think it's constitutional which is just reiterating the primary point. I am NOT asking you to show me how various courts have ruled in the past. If you want to address my OP, then you have the task of presenting an argument supporting that it is constitutional. And just saying that a certain court ruled a certain way is not support for this anymore than me pointing out the Roe ruling supports that legalized abortion is indeed constitutional for you have no obligation to agree with the SCOTUS on that ruling.

    So of course when we are debating this issue, we are presenting OUR OWN arguments on the matter and I would say that you've been doing a very good job of that overall. But again, just telling me that a court ruled a certain way in a certain year does not support that their ruling is correct. You can argue that it's correct but you will need to make your own case and not expect me to just agree with the ruling. That is point of my ARGUMENT 1.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The first answer is to value religion over secular, which our gov does and has, and does and I supported that.
    That while atheism is protected under religion, a clear distinction is made between an atheist act, and a "secular" act. (like your dinner example, is not an atheist religious act, it is just secular, as a comparison prayer has been ruled to be a "secular" status as it has been practiced for so long, hence prayer allowed before congress and what not (that was in one of my links if I "Need" to quote it)
    First off, the government nowadays, with very few examples, promotes secularism over any kind of religious preference. For example, no faculty-led prayer in public schools. No religious displays on public land. But either way, what the law IS is not particularly relevant to what it OUGHT to be.

    And religious activities are not something that atheists engage in. So to favor religious activities over secular activities is to favor religions over atheists. An atheist will not agree that drinking wine at mass is more important than drinking wine at dinner. An atheist might think drinking wine at dinner is more important because he thinks religion is actually harmful and therefore facilitating a "harmful" religious ceremony by allowing them to drink wine if they so choose is a bad thing and therefore it's better to have wine at dinner.

    And if the government chooses sides in this debate, then it is promoting one above the other and saying that the Catholics are right and the Atheists are wrong or vice versa. Neither is an acceptable judgment from the government if it is to remain neutral about Catholics and atheists.

    And you have provided no valid rationale for legally favoring religion over secularism. I agree that courts have in the past but then many of those rulings would be seen as blatantly unconstitutional in the present (such as allowing atheists to be barred from public office). And likewise using any current favoritism does not support it either for that would be is/ought fallacy. And of course just stating that one should be preferred will not suffice for that is just an opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second it is to distinguish what the limit is so that things like human sacrifice is not covered (as the first ruling on the issue feared) that answer is found in the balance of religious freedom (not secular freedom) with the compelling gov interests test.
    Okay. But then the test for the proper balance is:
    1. Is there a compelling government interest in banning X?
    2. If question 1 is "yes", then is there a valid reason to allow religious people an exemption for the ban on X?

    Only when you can answer "yes" to both of those questions, do you have a valid scenario for a religious exemption.

    So let's try this with Human Sacrifice.
    1. Yes, there is a compelling government interest in banning human sacrifice
    2. No, there is no valid reason to allow a religious exemption for religious people to sacrifice humans.

    So we don't have the right balance to have a law against human sacrifice that warrants a religious exemption.

    Now, let's try prohibition
    1. No, there is no compelling government interest in banning alcohol (I assume you agree with me on this).
    2. Since the answer to the first question is no, this question is moot.

    So here we also don't have a reason to strike the kind of balance you are referring to.

    Now, if you can find a scenario where we do need to strike a balance between having a justifiable law and allowing religious people the freedom to practice their faith, then I'm open to the notion of an allowable religious exemption. But then you have the burden to provide this kind of scenario. Because as of now, I think the laws fall into two categories.

    1. Laws that should be enforced for everyone, including religious people (so no religious exemption).
    2. Laws that shouldn't be enforced at all (so there is no basis for a religious exemption).
    Last edited by mican333; June 14th, 2017 at 06:31 AM.

  12. #72
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Situationally, ANY illegal action that one could take can be seen as "sending a message". One can run past a stop sign to "send a message" against traffic laws. So in respects to free speech issues, the law that punished the baker for refusing to sell a cake is no more an infringement on his right to free speech than giving someone a driving ticket is an infringement on this right to free speech.

    So neither of these laws are, in and of themselves, an infringement on free speech. The fact that one can break a law in order to send a message does not reasonably absolve them from receiving punishment for breaking the law nor does it make the law itself a threat to free speech.



    No, I rebutted your argument that his right to free speech was infringed upon. If one is punished for speaking, then they were punished for engaging in free speech. The baker was not punished because of the message he was sending. If he had refused to sell the cake for a reason that had nothing to do with sending a message, his punishment would have been exactly the same. Since what he was saying was completely irrelevant to the punishment he received, one cannot reasonably claim that he was punished for his speech.

    If you want to rebut this, you will need to argue that he WAS punished for what he was saying - which means he was punished FOR his message, not punished for something else while delivering his message..



    And as I said, questions are not argument. If you want to mount an argument regarding the two competing interests, then present your argument and I will address it. If you have no argument regarding this issue, then I have no response to this issue either.

    All I'm saying here is that if you want to debate this particular issue, then present an argument. Asking me to present my own argument regarding this issue first is shifting the burden.
    You can offer hypothetical examples of messages all day long. However, in the Sweet Cakes case, the bakers were very clear that their religious beliefs dictated their behavior. If you disagree, then please explain and provide support for your explanation.

    You never rebutted my argument. You're just repeating your original argument. You offered the movie Seven as explanation for your argument. I accept your premise, but disagree with your conclusion and explained why. So, if you do not address my argument, then it stands.

    You can choose to not answer a question, but you have not even rebutted my claim that there are two competing interests involved.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #73
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, in the Sweet Cakes case, the bakers were very clear that their religious beliefs dictated their behavior.
    Which had nothing to do with why they were punished.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You never rebutted my argument.
    Give me a break. YOU are the one who just refrained from responding to each of my points individually. Those are my rebuttals and you have not responded to some of them. So these rebuttals stand until they are directly addressed.

    Again, the fact that their punishment had nothing to do with their religious beliefs means that they weren't punished for their religious beliefs. That is a direct rebuttal to your argument and you have not made an argument that say that I'm wrong about this. So this argument stands until you rebut it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You can choose to not answer a question, but you have not even rebutted my claim that there are two competing interests involved.
    I don't challenge the notion that there are two competing interests in involved. You may consider that point conceded. Now, if you have an argument regarding those two competing interests, let's hear it.
    Last edited by mican333; June 14th, 2017 at 09:07 AM.

  14. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which had nothing to do with why they were punished.



    Give me a break. YOU are the one who just refrained from responding to each of my points individually. Those are my rebuttals and you have not responded to some of them. So these rebuttals stand until they are directly addressed.

    Again, the fact that their punishment had nothing to do with their religious beliefs means that they weren't punished for their religious beliefs. That is a direct rebuttal to your argument and you have not made an argument that say that I'm wrong about this. So this argument stands until you rebut it.




    I don't challenge the notion that there are two competing interests in involved. You may consider that point conceded. Now, if you have an argument regarding those two competing interests, let's hear it.
    Don't act all indignant. I, on two separate occasions rebutted your argument revolving around why they were punished. On two separate occasions you have ignored my rebuttal and simply repeated your claims. There is no reason to respond to each point individually when the clearly overlap and when my rebuttals have not been addressed.

    I'm glad you've acknowledged that there are two competing interests. I am just not sure whether you've conceded that one of the interests is the first amendment. In fact, I am not sure you've specified what either interest is. However, you've clearly decided one interest is more important than the other. So, it is relevant to ask what are the competing interests which you concede exist?

    You keep insisting that your repetitive claim (i.e. the punishment had nothing to do with their religious beliefs) is a rebuttal, but I've rebutted this line of reasoning and it has not been addressed by you.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #75
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I, on two separate occasions rebutted your argument revolving around why they were punished.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you rebutted the argument "the fact that their punishment had nothing to do with their religious beliefs means that they weren't punished for their religious beliefs."

    So you can either show me the argument of yours that rebuts this or you can make a new argument that rebuts this but you can't continue to claim that you rebutted this without showing the rebuttal - to do so would be to refuse to either support your claim or retract your claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'm glad you've acknowledged that there are two competing interests. I am just not sure whether you've conceded that one of the interests is the first amendment.
    I've conceded YOUR claim that there are competing interests. I've not conceded that one of them is the first amendment. So if you want to establish that one of them is the first amendment, you will need to support that it is so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In fact, I am not sure you've specified what either interest is.
    I haven't. You are the one who is introducing the "competing interests" argument, not me. So it's not up to me to identify the competing interests. It's up to you to do that if you want to forward this argument.

    And if you don't want to forward the competing interests argument, that's fine with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, you've clearly decided one interest is more important than the other. So, it is relevant to ask what are the competing interests which you concede exist?
    It's not relevant to any argument that I'm making. Again, YOU are the one who is talking about competing interests so you are the one who needs to identify the competing interests if such a concept is going to be the basis of an argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You keep insisting that your repetitive claim (i.e. the punishment had nothing to do with their religious beliefs) is a rebuttal, but I've rebutted this line of reasoning and it has not been addressed by you.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT THIS CLAIM. Either identify that argument of yours that I have not addressed or cease claiming that I have addressed an argument of yours. If you can't or won't support this claim, then stop making it.
    Last edited by mican333; June 15th, 2017 at 07:19 AM.

  16. #76
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you rebutted the argument "the fact that their punishment had nothing to do with their religious beliefs means that they weren't punished for their religious beliefs."

    So you can either show me the argument of yours that rebuts this or you can make a new argument that rebuts this but you can't continue to claim that you rebutted this without showing the rebuttal - to do so would be to refuse to either support your claim or retract your claim.





    I've conceded YOUR claim that there are competing interests. I've not conceded that one of them is the first amendment. So if you want to establish that one of them is the first amendment, you will need to support that it is so.



    I haven't. You are the one who is introducing the "competing interests" argument, not me. So it's not up to me to identify the competing interests. It's up to you to do that if you want to forward this argument.

    And if you don't want to forward the competing interests argument, that's fine with me.



    It's not relevant to any argument that I'm making. Again, YOU are the one who is talking about competing interests so you are the one who needs to identify the competing interests if such a concept is going to be the basis of an argument.






    SUPPORT OR RETRACT THIS CLAIM. Either identify that argument of yours that I have not addressed or cease claiming that I have addressed an argument of yours. If you can't or won't support this claim, then stop making it.
    1. Typing in all caps does not make your argument or demand more compelling. You can read my posts or not read them. I offered a rebuttal using your own movie example. Whether you address it or not is your choice.

    2. You concede there are competing interests. I'm asking you what those interests are. If you don't want to answer, it is your choice. Don't pretend it is anything other than your own desire to avoid the question for fear of damaging your position. There is nowhere on ODN where asking your opponent questions and expecting an answer is verboten.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #77
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Situationally, ANY illegal action that one could take can be seen as "sending a message". One can run past a stop sign to "send a message" against traffic laws. So in respects to free speech issues, the law that punished the baker for refusing to sell a cake is no more an infringement on his right to free speech than giving someone a driving ticket is an infringement on this right to free speech.

    So neither of these laws are, in and of themselves, an infringement on free speech. The fact that one can break a law in order to send a message does not reasonably absolve them from receiving punishment for breaking the law nor does it make the law itself a threat to free speech.
    I don't think quoting court justifcation and reasoning is an "is/ought" fallacy. It is not simply pointing to their ruling, but the reasoning of the ruling.
    This line directly contradicts the claims of "it can't be taken this way" or "It is unconst".

    Still, I think this is the "how" line. How it is reasoned has been presented, not simply how it has been ruled.

    I guess I'm just a little unclear, as I don't see the failure on my side to address arguments and make my own.

    As a comparison, I object to roe vs wade based on the invalidity of their reasoning. (IE - I argue that their reasoning X was wrong).
    if the rulings were based on no reasoning at all, then pointing to the end ruling could be an "is ought" fallacy. But the courts are the proper authority to site in how things ought to be understood as far as the law, and disagreeing with them requires a higher level of objection then simply dismissing the ruling. (especially when the ruling still stands).

    So like the ruling you (and I) sited was overturned, because it held the "free exercise" clause to be about ideas and beliefs only. It was overturned because it is ridiculous to think "exercise" is limited to simple belief, rather the plane understanding is that it refers to actions. (jut giving an example of the deeper critique than just court 1 ruled x and court 2 ruled y)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you have provided no valid rationale for legally favoring religion over secularism. I agree that courts have in the past but then many of those rulings would be seen as blatantly unconstitutional in the present (such as allowing atheists to be barred from public office). And likewise using any current favoritism does not support it either for that would be is/ought fallacy. And of course just stating that one should be preferred will not suffice for that is just an opinion.
    You will have to support this claim.
    What example have I given that would today be considered unconst?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Okay. But then the test for the proper balance is:
    1. Is there a compelling government interest in banning X?
    2. If question 1 is "yes", then is there a valid reason to allow religious people an exemption for the ban on X?
    Not at all.

    The question is
    #1 Is there a law in place that outlaws X religous practice.
    #2 Is there a compelling gov interest which requires that religiuos practice to be outlawed
    #3 If yes to #1 and no to #2 then a religoius exemption is justified and possibly const required.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So let's try this with Human Sacrifice.
    1. Yes, there is a compelling government interest in banning human sacrifice
    2. No, there is no valid reason to allow a religious exemption for religious people to sacrifice humans.
    So applied here.
    #1 There is a law against murder that outlaws the religoius practice of human sacrifice
    #2 There is a compelling gov interest in keeping it's citizens from having their Right to Life denied them.
    #3 Therefore no religious exemption is required or justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now, let's try prohibition
    1. No, there is no compelling government interest in banning alcohol (I assume you agree with me on this).
    2. Since the answer to the first question is no, this question is moot.
    #1 There is a law against alcholo which outlaws the religious practice of communion
    #2 The gov fails to establish a compelling gov interest in outlawing the practice
    #3 Therefore there is a valid justification for a religious exemption.

    ---
    Here a compelling gov interest is understood as obedience being required for the gov to accomplish it's job.
    So for example, religoius exemptions were given for service in the military (especially servic which required killing) because allowing a religoius sect
    to practice it's passifism did not jeporize the integrity of the draft. IE the gov could still effectivly field an army, and the fact hat bob was allowed to be a medic instead of being forced to drop attomic bombs did not effect the gov mission.

    Another example is swearing in. For both atheist and religous, being exempt from the requirment to "swear" doesn't effect the ability of the court to establish a valid testimoney.
    Such as the religous exemption of being allowed to give "solomn oath" instead.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now, if you can find a scenario where we do need to strike a balance between having a justifiable law and allowing religious people the freedom to practice their faith, then I'm open to the notion of an allowable religious exemption. But then you have the burden to provide this kind of scenario. Because as of now, I think the laws fall into two categories.

    1. Laws that should be enforced for everyone, including religious people (so no religious exemption).
    2. Laws that shouldn't be enforced at all (so there is no basis for a religious exemption).
    See above.
    I think both are alternative examples to the prohibition, and have been established in the links provided so far.
    I doubt you would argue that people absolutly must "swear", or that the law is bad and no one should be forced to "swear" ever.


    Finally, you have offered no suport what so ever that laws fall into those two categories. Those are not real legal categories and is not how the court has ever seen them.
    AS such, you have the clear burden to establish those categories and why we SHOULD see them that way.

    As it currently stands, all sorts of laws have all sorts of exemptions.
    Medical exemptions are given (prohibition again was an example).
    Laws governing poisons exist with the intent to outlaw for everyone but a few. (Ie you can't just go buy arsinic.. but if you are a rat poison producer, I bet you can).
    And of course tax law is covered in them.

    So the position tha laws exist today that have no exemptions (religious or otherwise) is simply false. We don't live in a society where laws don't commonly have exemptions. With precious few laws that actually do exist in that state.
    Like murder is always illegal (but we mess with that by naming death caused by another something esle).

    Heck parking laws don't even fit.

    It is illegal to park in certain places, unless you are a fireman, polic officer ect.

    1-It fails to fall in your #1, because it isn't enforced for everyone (IE fire and police are exempt)
    2-It fails to fall into your #2 because I assume we should have places that most people can't park except for the chosen few exempt.


    So we should not accept your standard
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  18. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Typing in all caps does not make your argument or demand more compelling.
    It's not meant to. I generally capitalize "Support or Retract" to make it clear that I'm offering that particular challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You can read my posts or not read them. I offered a rebuttal using your own movie example. Whether you address it or not is your choice.
    Saying "I offered a rebuttal" is not a rebuttal. You've been challenged to support your claim that you offered a rebuttal. If you refuse to support your claim, you must retract it.

    And btw, here's the post where I DID address your "Seven" argument so your claim that I did not respond to it is clearly false.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post554822

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2. You concede there are competing interests. I'm asking you what those interests are. If you don't want to answer, it is your choice. Don't pretend it is anything other than your own desire to avoid the question for fear of damaging your position.
    Actually I'm not answering your questions to avoid allowing you to shift the burden. If you want to engage in a debate regarding competing interests, then it is your burden to present your argument and support it. Asking me to forward my position first will likely put the burden on me to support whatever I say. But the burden is yours, not mine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    There is nowhere on ODN where asking your opponent questions and expecting an answer is verboten.
    I never said otherwise. Also there's no rule at ODN that says that I must answer any question that is asked of me.

    But there is a rule regarding supporting your claims and you are currently in violation of that rule by continuing to claim that you forwarded a rebuttal without support that you have done so in the face of a SUPPORT/RETRACT challenge.
    Last edited by mican333; June 15th, 2017 at 10:03 AM.

  19. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not meant to. I generally capitalize "Support or Retract" to make it clear that I'm offering that particular challenge.



    Saying "I offered a rebuttal" is not a rebuttal. You've been challenged to support your claim that you offered a rebuttal. If you refuse to support your claim, you must retract it.

    And btw, here's the post where I DID address your "Seven" argument so your claim that I did not respond to it is clearly false.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post554822



    Actually I'm not answering your questions to avoid allowing you to shift the burden. If you want to engage in a debate regarding competing interests, then it is your burden to present your argument and support it. Asking me to forward my position first will likely put the burden on me to support whatever I say. But the burden is yours, not mine.




    I never said otherwise. Also there's no rule at ODN that says that I must answer any question that is asked of me.

    But there is a rule regarding supporting your claims and you are currently in violation of that rule by continuing to claim that you forwarded a rebuttal without support that you have done so in the face of a SUPPORT/RETRACT challenge.
    You see, you didn't actual rebut the point. You just refused to answer a question. That's not the same thing. Even if you don't wish to answer the question, you've already conceded that we are discussing two competing interests (just like the movie example) which was my rebuttal to your point. His use of murder to express himself was the central issue. You have offered a false choice in claiming the police were not stopping him for his self-expression. It is no different than a totalitarian government arresting someone for protesting. The citizens are free to express themselves, but protesting the government is an act of violence. So, the dictator could easily say he's not preventing people from speaking, but from committing violent acts. It is an imaginary line.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #80
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You see, you didn't actual rebut the point. You just refused to answer a question. That's not the same thing. Even if you don't wish to answer the question, you've already conceded that we are discussing two competing interests (just like the movie example) which was my rebuttal to your point.
    Then your rebuttal does not coherently counter my point.

    My argument is that since the baker's "speech" did not effect why he was punished, he was not punished for his speech. Saying that there are two competing interests does not in any way invalidate this argument.

    And I'll even identify the competing interests. Of course since I'm the one doing it, you are going to see what I think the competing interest are.

    1. The government's interest is in consistently enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
    2. The baker's interest is in having the freedom to discriminate against gay marriage when it comes to providing cakes.

    Of course both interests go a bit deeper than that but at this point I believe I've heeded your request for identifying the two competing interests. If you want to say that the competing interests are something other than what I've forwarded, then you will need to identify what you think the interests are. But now you have my answer and there's nothing in it that rebuts my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    His use of murder to express himself was the central issue. You have offered a false choice in claiming the police were not stopping him for his self-expression. It is no different than a totalitarian government arresting someone for protesting. The citizens are free to express themselves, but protesting the government is an act of violence. So, the dictator could easily say he's not preventing people from speaking, but from committing violent acts. It is an imaginary line.
    And unless you are arguing that that is what is happening with the baker (using arrest for breaking a law as an excuse to punish one for speaking out), you will need to support this assertion.

    If you can't or won't support it, then your dictator scenario is irrelevant to what happened to the baker.


    ---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think quoting court justifcation and reasoning is an "is/ought" fallacy. It is not simply pointing to their ruling, but the reasoning of the ruling.
    This line directly contradicts the claims of "it can't be taken this way" or "It is unconst".
    I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying that just showing that that court ruled a certain way does not mean that one has to agree with the decision (just like you don't have to agree with Roe v. Wade).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Still, I think this is the "how" line. How it is reasoned has been presented, not simply how it has been ruled.
    And I am free to disagree with any of the reasoning that was presented.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I guess I'm just a little unclear, as I don't see the failure on my side to address arguments and make my own.

    As a comparison, I object to roe vs wade based on the invalidity of their reasoning. (IE - I argue that their reasoning X was wrong).
    if the rulings were based on no reasoning at all, then pointing to the end ruling could be an "is ought" fallacy. But the courts are the proper authority to site in how things ought to be understood as far as the law, and disagreeing with them requires a higher level of objection then simply dismissing the ruling. (especially when the ruling still stands).
    And I've not dismissed any ruling out of hand. I've made my own arguments regarding my legal reasoning for my arguments. My reasoning may run counter to certain rulings but I'm not obliged to abandon my arguments in the face of these rulings. Just because someone disagrees with my reasoning does not mean I'm wrong. Assuming my arguments are reasoned and supported, they remain so in the face of someone, even a court, holding a different opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So like the ruling you (and I) sited was overturned, because it held the "free exercise" clause to be about ideas and beliefs only. It was overturned because it is ridiculous to think "exercise" is limited to simple belief, rather the plane understanding is that it refers to actions. (jut giving an example of the deeper critique than just court 1 ruled x and court 2 ruled y)
    And I showed that courts ruled that the FEC protects ideas and speech but not action.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will have to support this claim.
    What example have I given that would today be considered unconst?
    I don't recall claiming that you have given such examples so this question seems to be a straw-man. My point is that you have not provided any valid rationale for favoring religious over secularism. As far as I can tell, your position is based on your opinion that it should be.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all.

    The question is
    #1 Is there a law in place that outlaws X religous practice.
    No that is NOT the question. A law does not have to be in place before the issue of religious exemptions come into play. In fact, assuming that one agrees that a particular religious exemption should be instituted, the appropriate time to do is while the law is being written, not AFTER it's being enforce.

    So given that, let's say that it's proposed that we reinstate prohibition and you think that if we do, there should be a religious exemption for wine at mass. The very first question to ask is "Should we actually reinstate prohibition?" which means that the first question is, as I said:

    1. Is there a compelling government interest in banning X?

    If the answer is "no" then of course there should be no law and therefore the issue of an exemption of any kind is moot.
    If the answer is "yes" then there will be an identifiable compelling governmental interest in banning alcohol.

    So let's say for the sake of argument the answer is "yes" and prohibition is instituted. So now comes the question regarding the issue of whether religious exemption should be allowed so now the question we ask is:

    2. Is there a valid reason to allow religious people an exemption for the ban on X (alcohol)?

    And to answer that question, we need to identify the reason that alcohol was banned. It's not impossible that the reason for the ban is so important that we can't even allow it to be used for religious reasons. So in the case of alcohol you cannot answer whether there should or should not be an exemption for alcohol until we assess the compelling government interest in banning it.

    So really, you can't make a valid argument for allowing a religious exemption for alcohol without first identifying the reason for it being banned in the first place.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here a compelling gov interest is understood as obedience being required for the gov to accomplish it's job.
    So for example, religoius exemptions were given for service in the military (especially servic which required killing) because allowing a religoius sect
    to practice it's passifism did not jeporize the integrity of the draft. IE the gov could still effectivly field an army, and the fact hat bob was allowed to be a medic instead of being forced to drop attomic bombs did not effect the gov mission.
    You do realize that one does not have to be religious to have conscientious objector status, right? That's been the law for decades now. So there is no religious exemption here. One can object in a secular fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Another example is swearing in. For both atheist and religous, being exempt from the requirment to "swear" doesn't effect the ability of the court to establish a valid testimoney.
    Such as the religous exemption of being allowed to give "solomn oath" instead.
    You aren't making much sense here. Both a theist and atheist do have to swear to tell the truth, etc. so neither is exempt. And they likewise get to choose whether they want to swear in a religious fashion or not. This is actually a good example of secularism - the law treating the faithful and the faithless as equals.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See above.
    I think both are alternative examples to the prohibition, and have been established in the links provided so far.
    I doubt you would argue that people absolutly must "swear", or that the law is bad and no one should be forced to "swear" ever.
    No, they aren't. In both instances, they are enforced on atheists and the religious equally. Both an atheist and a theist can attain conscientious objector status and they both swear in a fashion consistent with their deistic beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, you have offered no suport what so ever that laws fall into those two categories. Those are not real legal categories and is not how the court has ever seen them.
    AS such, you have the clear burden to establish those categories and why we SHOULD see them that way.
    I'm just observing the law as it is. I'm aware of no current laws that the religious don't have to follow but the atheists do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As it currently stands, all sorts of laws have all sorts of exemptions.
    Medical exemptions are given (prohibition again was an example).
    Laws governing poisons exist with the intent to outlaw for everyone but a few. (Ie you can't just go buy arsinic.. but if you are a rat poison producer, I bet you can).
    And of course tax law is covered in them.

    So the position tha laws exist today that have no exemptions (religious or otherwise) is simply false.
    Straw-man. I never argued that no exemptions exist at all. This debate is just about religious exemptions. And while I can't think of any religious exemptions, finding some wouldn't really rebut my position that they shouldn't exist.

    And you ignored the primary part of my point so I will repeat it:

    "Now, if you can find a scenario where we do need to strike a balance between having a justifiable law and allowing religious people the freedom to practice their faith, then I'm open to the notion of an allowable religious exemption. But then you have the burden to provide this kind of scenario."

    You don't inherently have the burden to find such a scenario. I'm just saying that before I will agree that religious exemptions should exist, such a scenario will need to be presented. The two scenarios forwarded in this debate don't suffice.

    Prohibition is not valid example because the law itself is not justifiable (IMO).
    Human sacrifice is not a valid example because I don't agree that religious people should be allowed to do that.

    If there is no law that is both justifiable in general and yet ONLY religious people should be allowed to violate in certain circumstances, then there is never a need for a religious exemption. And therefore all proposed laws fall into two categories:

    1. Laws that should be enforced for everyone, including religious people (so no religious exemption).
    2. Laws that shouldn't be enforced at all (so there is no basis for a religious exemption).
    Last edited by mican333; June 16th, 2017 at 06:19 AM.

 

 
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion is not a constitutional right
    By theophilus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 12:04 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  3. Home schooling not a constitutional right in California
    By MindTrap028 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Another Constitutional Convention?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Goldphoenix, on Constitutional Issues
    By Netopalis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •