A well-organized, well-funded effort is underway to interpret religious freedom as a weapon that can be used to impose beliefs on others. We discuss how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is being weaponized.
I have been a member of Americans United, that deals in 1st amendment religious cases, for years. They particularly defend the freedom from other peoples religion. In general, our constitutional rights are not total and absolute, they are limited by infringing on other folks rights. In general, the strategy of the Christian Right, is to move or eliminate that boundary where someone else’s freedom of, or from religion would be a constraint. The poorly selected SC is all too often on the side of Christian nationalists, trying to push their religious beliefs on others. This is the crux of the wesponization.
I've also been a member of AU for years. In fact, I was an officer of our local chapter for a number years. I must say that it was difficult to get many people excited about the need to defend separation of church and state. Surprisingly few people who grew up in the Bible Belt, where I now live, understand the issues.
When I was a grad student at the University of North Carolina in the late 70s, a dinner was held in honor of someone's retirement. At the dinner, the president of the student chapter of the ACM led us in a Christian prayer. When I spoke with him the next day about why this was both inappropriate and illegal, he was shocked. He told me that he grew up in rural Georgia and didn't realize that there were people who would be offended.
Later he joined the faculty of UNC and posted Christian messages on his university web page. I informed AU and they asked the University to intervene, which they did. He took the material off of his university web page and put it on a personal web page. He then posted cease and desist letter from AU on his university web page and pointed to his personal web page. The bottom line is that neither he nor the University cared even after having it explained to them.
Crossing Line #3 is a difficult problem to fight and the Supreme Court has ruled in the wrong way multiple times. I'll discuss this in the next newsletter. I'll also talk about how the Supreme Court go to be the way it is, probably in the following newsletter.
In my naive perspective, something that the courts ought to recognize is that some aspects of religion are "practiced at home or in the place of worship (if any)", and some are practiced in public spaces where they affect other folks.
In the former case, government should probably not intrude unless someone's faith requires ritualistic cannibalism of their own family members. Or something similarly extreme that harms individuals (even if it harms other believers).
In the latter case, the courts probably should weigh whether it is necessary, not just approved by a majority, for one person to practice their faith in a way that directly harms anyone or infringes upon anyone else's religious freedom.
In this case, Thuggee behavior of robbing and murdering travelers is not OK, even if that is a fundamental tenet of worshipping Kali. But wearing a yarmulke in public is fine, because it harms nobody and doesn't restrict anyone else's ability to pursue their faith.
I have been a member of Americans United, that deals in 1st amendment religious cases, for years. They particularly defend the freedom from other peoples religion. In general, our constitutional rights are not total and absolute, they are limited by infringing on other folks rights. In general, the strategy of the Christian Right, is to move or eliminate that boundary where someone else’s freedom of, or from religion would be a constraint. The poorly selected SC is all too often on the side of Christian nationalists, trying to push their religious beliefs on others. This is the crux of the wesponization.
I've also been a member of AU for years. In fact, I was an officer of our local chapter for a number years. I must say that it was difficult to get many people excited about the need to defend separation of church and state. Surprisingly few people who grew up in the Bible Belt, where I now live, understand the issues.
When I was a grad student at the University of North Carolina in the late 70s, a dinner was held in honor of someone's retirement. At the dinner, the president of the student chapter of the ACM led us in a Christian prayer. When I spoke with him the next day about why this was both inappropriate and illegal, he was shocked. He told me that he grew up in rural Georgia and didn't realize that there were people who would be offended.
Later he joined the faculty of UNC and posted Christian messages on his university web page. I informed AU and they asked the University to intervene, which they did. He took the material off of his university web page and put it on a personal web page. He then posted cease and desist letter from AU on his university web page and pointed to his personal web page. The bottom line is that neither he nor the University cared even after having it explained to them.
Crossing Line #3 is a difficult problem to fight and the Supreme Court has ruled in the wrong way multiple times. I'll discuss this in the next newsletter. I'll also talk about how the Supreme Court go to be the way it is, probably in the following newsletter.
In my naive perspective, something that the courts ought to recognize is that some aspects of religion are "practiced at home or in the place of worship (if any)", and some are practiced in public spaces where they affect other folks.
In the former case, government should probably not intrude unless someone's faith requires ritualistic cannibalism of their own family members. Or something similarly extreme that harms individuals (even if it harms other believers).
In the latter case, the courts probably should weigh whether it is necessary, not just approved by a majority, for one person to practice their faith in a way that directly harms anyone or infringes upon anyone else's religious freedom.
In this case, Thuggee behavior of robbing and murdering travelers is not OK, even if that is a fundamental tenet of worshipping Kali. But wearing a yarmulke in public is fine, because it harms nobody and doesn't restrict anyone else's ability to pursue their faith.
s/naive/sensible/
What you're suggesting is Line #2. Your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose.