Wilderness wanderings: Emily Whitten on Maurice Sendak and Jean Craighead George 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Four colleges now suing over contraception mandate
Two more evangelical Christian colleges are suing the federal government over the contraceptive coverage mandate included in the new national healthcare law, a requirement administrators from both schools say violates their constitutional rights.
Louisiana College, in Pineville, La., filed its suit on Saturday, while Geneva College, in Beaver Falls, Pa., will file its suit Tuesday. Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) will represent both schools.
The suits are part of the latest round of opposition to the law, which has united Catholics and evangelical Protestants in withering criticism of the federal government’s expanding power.
“The Obama administration has attempted to negate exiting real protections for religious freedom and it has no authority to do that,” Matt Bowman, an ADF lawyer, told me.
Under the new healthcare law, employers must provide coverage for contraceptives, including abortifacients like Plan B and Ella, which can prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb. The law includes a narrow religious exemption that would apply only to churches, requiring schools, hospitals, and community service organizations to comply or face large fines.
On Feb. 10, after at first dismissing the severe backlash from religious leaders over the mandate, President Barack Obama announced what he called a compromise—a plan to shift the burden and cost of providing contraceptives from religious employers to insurance companies.
But the president’s proposal placated few religious leaders, who called it nothing more than a shell game. Under the proposal, insurance companies would simply raise the rates for religious organizations to cover the cost of contraceptives, ultimately making these organizations pay for something to which they object. And that objection is at the heart of the real issue: freedom of conscience.
“The First Amendment protects Americans from mandates that require us to act against our own convictions,” said Kenneth Smith, president of Geneva College, in a news release provided by the ADF. “We find the mandate to provide our faculty, staff, and students with insurance that provides pills to abort babies totally abhorrent and unacceptable. The government shouldn’t be able to force anyone to buy or sell insurance that subsidizes morally objectionable treatments.” … COMPLETE STORY >>
back to top56 Comments to “Four colleges now suing over contraception mandate”
“The First Amendment protects Americans from mandates that require us to act against our own convictions,”
–
Mr. Obama does not care about the first amendement.. He only care about expand the Government control over people lives.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama was a Constitutional law professor at Harvard, what does that say about Harvard’s law school? He already said he couldn’t understand a simple real-estate contract!
Report comment to moderator
I posted this elsewhere, but this thread is where it best applies:
The following statement (article & video link below) by Dr. Allisan Garrett, Senior VP for Academic Affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, at a recent congressional hearing, is clear as a bell and goes to the heart of the issue:
http://www.oc.edu/news/allison-garrett-appears-at-congressional-hearing
Report comment to moderator
Not to contradict Pastor’s reasoned analysis, but here are my thoughts.
1. Free Speech. For the regulations to violate the free speech clause, the plaintiffs will need to prove that the ordinary observer will believe that their employees’ conduct constitutes speech on the employer’s behalf. There are certainly instances where this is the case, but this probably isn’t one of them. When the spouse of a Geneva College faculty member obtains oral contraceptives from the local pharmacy, no reasonable person would believe that such conduct constitutes speech on the part of her husband’s employer in favor of contraceptive use. In my opinion, the plaintiffs’ cases are DOA on this point.
2. Free Exercise. For the regulations to violate the free exercise clause, the plaintiffs will need to prove that the regulations substantially burden a core aspect of religious practice. This too is not a winner. Courts have rarely found that a law of general applicability violates the free exercise clause unless it interferes with worship or a related activity. Running a school or a hospital is not a central aspect of religious practice. Otherwise, Catholic schools and hospitals could opt out of practically every federal law or regulation.
3. Fifth Amendment. This one hinges on the above two. In other words, DOA.
4. RFRA. For the regulations to violate RFRA, the plaintiffs will at least need to prove that (1) their claim involves one of sincere religious belief, (2) the regulation is a substantial burden on the employer’s ability to act on that belief. This is a closer call than the above 3 claims. The employers can probably satisfy the first prong without too much difficulty, unless they’ve had a history of supplying employees with insurance that paid for contraceptives. The second prong is tougher. Does a private employer have a religious interest in making it more difficult for their employees or their families to obtain contraceptives? I suspect that some employers may be able to satisfy this test, especially if the employer requires its employees to adhere to a statement of faith as a condition of employment (and that statement of faith prohibits the use of contraceptives). Other employers will not be able to satisfy that test because they don’t require that employees share their faith.
Of course, this begs the question: If an employer can satisfy the second prong of the test, then they may be eligible to obtain an exemption. If not, then the exemption should probably be broadened so that it at least includes religiously affiliated organizations that exclusively employ people who adhere to the religious principles of the organization. Otherwise, the regulation may violate RFRA as applied to a narrow set of employers. Of course, this would not mean that the regulation is generally violative of RFRA; it would just violate RFRA as applied to such employers.
But I wonder whether RFRA is Constitutional? In City of Boerne v. Flores, RFRA was struck down as unconstitutional as applied to state/local government action. SCOTUS has not ruled on its Constitutionality as applied to federal government action. Interestingly enough, the same folks who have argued that Congress overreached its Constitutional authority in passing Obamacare are now relying on an Act whose Constitutional footing is equally as tenuous.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN @4 – Your explanation is a little tortured. The first amendment applies to congress, not to the actions of individuals or employers. “Congress shall make now law . . .”
Report comment to moderator
Leo,
Each of the sections that address the Constitution recite “[f]or the regulations to violate….” This is an express reference to Congressional action, wherein DHH is promulgating regulations pursuant to Congressional delegation.
Moreover, how is the explanation tortured? If you think you can concisely analyze these issues more succinctly, I invite you to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Obama was a Constitutional law professor at Harvard
–
We have no proof that he was ever a Constitutional law professor at Harvard. No writings, nothing
Report comment to moderator
evan read what I wrote…Mr. Obama does not care about the first amendement.. He only care about expand the Government control over people lives.
Report comment to moderator
For the regulations to violate the free exercise clause, the plaintiffs will need to prove that the regulations substantially burden a core aspect of religious practice.
—
since killing babies goes against the Chrisitan Faith and Mr. OBama desire to kill babies by covering pills to abort babies. Would be a burden…
But we understand the far left has respect for children lives
Report comment to moderator
EVAN, It’s certainly obvious to all of us that Congress in passing the Affordable Care Act thought they were acting constitutionally. Now that we are discovering “what is in it,” we, and they, are finding out that they were wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor (9):
Are you suggesting that the Free Exercise clause confers upon individuals the right to take private action to enjoin others’ conduct when they believe that such conduct is contrary to their religious convictions?
If so, it’s finally good to hear an evangelical say so. I have long alleged that evangelicals, like yourself, are primarily interested in establishing a theocracy. Your comment above suggests that I have been right all along.
Leo (10): I agree that there are credible arguments to made concerning the unconstitutionality of the health-care Act. For the same reasons, I believe that RFRA too stands on shaky ground. Are you disagreeing?
Report comment to moderator
Evan #11,
I am puzzled and upset by claims that evangelicals opposed to the Obamacare contraception mandate want to impose their views on others or “establish a theocracy”. The Obamacare mandate involves forcing people and institutions to pay for a product that violates their consciences. Nowhere in the objections have I read that anyone wants to stop anyone else from buying products that they want to buy.
The infringement of rights is solely proposed by Obama’s administration. People of faith – Catholics, Protestants and Jews – are protesting that infringement of our constitutional freedoms.
Report comment to moderator
Evan:
Thanks for the informative and detailed analysis at #4.
IANAL, but “Free Speech” seems to me to have become a grab-bag of grievance. Everyone who sues anyone makes at least a half-hearted attempt at saying that his right to Free Speech was violated. But it doesn’t sound to me like Smith (President of Geneva College) was doing that. He was more likely referring to the “free exercise of religion.”
So your point #2 is where the rub lies.
Against your explanation, we have Smith’s statement:
Would you say that’s wrong? That as long as it does not interfere with worship or a related activity, the government can in fact force someone to buy insurance that subsidizes treatments they find morally objectionable?
For example, could the government regulate that all organizations must buy insurance which provides free abortions to their employees? That pays for their sex change operations? Or (to choose issues more likely to raise liberal ire), that performs female circumcisions? That sends them to re-orientation therapy (”pray away the gay”)?
Is there a line at which the government cannot force an employer to provide something he thinks morally objectionable to an employee?
Report comment to moderator
Beth (12):
I believe that you have misrepresented my comments. I was referring specifically to Pastor’s comments in (9), where he appears to advocate for a rather expansive reading of the Free Exercise clause.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (13):
The First Amendment does not generally protect us from having to do things that we find objectionable.
Some people find it objectionable that they cannot legally marry multiple wives, and their objections rest on religious conviction. If the Free Exercise clause were read this expansively, each of us could opt out of obeying the laws merely by cloaking our subjective preferences in the garb of religious conviction.
I quote Justice Scalia below from Employment Division v. Smith, who recommends that the legislative process is sufficient to prevent the abuses you recite.
“Just as a society that believes in the negative protection accorded to the press by the First Amendment is likely to enact laws that affirmatively foster the dissemination of the printed word, so also a society that believes in the negative protection afforded to religious belief can be expected to be solicitous of that value in its legislation as well.”
In other words, bad laws have a way of taking care of themselves during the course of the legislative process. Justice Scalia warned that the contrary result in “a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself.”
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Report comment to moderator
This is definitely NOT about a theocracy or about Evangelicals forcing their view on others. It is about a dictatorial President forcing his view on others–forcing private businesses to act in ways that they say are contrary to their own interests. They don’t even have to make it about religious conviction for the principle to be valid. NO business should be told by the government what they can or cannot seel and what benefits they must provide or must not provide for their employees.
This outrage goes way beyond a tax on tea.
Report comment to moderator
What Beth said, at #12.
Also, what Dr. Allison Garrett said at:
http://www.oc.edu/news/allison-garrett-appears-at-congressional-hearing
Report comment to moderator
Kyle (16) & Joel (17):
Please note my comments in (14), where I clarified that my statements are directed narrowly to something that Pastor said in (9).
Pastor suggested that when people do things that “go[] against the Christian [f]aith,” it substantially burdens a core aspect of religious practice. That strikes me as a remarkably broad reading of the free exercise clause; namely, that evangelical Christians have a constitutional right to have the government enjoin others–including non-Christians–from doing things that are contrary to the teachings of evangelical Christianity.
You claim that you don’t desire a theocracy. If that’s true, I suspect that you would have corrected Pastor. But you didn’t. Instead, you elected to go after me for pointing out the necessary corollary of Pastor’s interpretation of the free exercise clause.
Report comment to moderator
Joel (17):
Dr. Garrett’s testimony actually undermines the plaintiffs’ arguments in these cases. I believe that it would have made better sense for the plaintiffs to do what Dr. Garrett did: Petition the legislature to amend the law.
I agree that these regulations are bad policy. A number of religiously affiliated colleges require employees to agree to a statement of faith. If that statement of faith expressly proscribes conduct (e.g., contraceptive use) that the health-care Act requires employers to pay for, then I think it makes good policy to allow such employers to qualify for an exemption. Many such schools would probably qualify for an exemption under the currently proposed regulations. On the other hand, schools that don’t impose similar requirements on their students would presumably not qualify for an exemption. That strikes me as bad policy.
The typical remedy for bad policy is to ask the legislature to change the law. Alleging a Constitutional violation strikes me as a bit of a stretch. The federal courts are simply not the answer. After all, we don’t have a Constitutional right not to be ruled by unwise leaders.
Report comment to moderator
I have long alleged that evangelicals, like yourself, are primarily interested in establishing a theocracy
—
No, it is the left that desire to establishing a theocracy. THe god of their theocracy is government. They worship at the seat of power……
Christian desire freedom. Freedom to Worship with out the Government telling us the name of Jesus violates seperation of church and state.
Report comment to moderator
A number of religiously affiliated colleges require employees to agree to a statement of faith
—
Those school’s are called private Colleges.. An can require such statement as long s they are up front about it.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, most Christian organizations are against abortion (even early abortions) and contraceptive use by unmarried people (e.g., college students or minor dependents of employees), even if they are not opposed to non-abortive contraceptives within marriage. Others are against contraceptives in any use.
Forcing them to pay for–and thus condone use of–items they consider to be morally wrong goes way, way beyond “having to do something they find offensive,” or rather, NOT do things they’d rather do (as in marrying multiple wives or “marrying” someone of one’s own sex). Being forced to do something of which one disapproves is a whole different animal–akin to forcing the homosexual to prove his manliness by marrying a woman, not akin to forcing the polygamist to choose only one wife (while he can, by the way, still have other wives “under the radar”).
Besides, Congress really has no right even to require employees to cover health insurance at all, let alone telling them to cover optional (and to some, morally wrong) medical supplies.
Is our culture really so anti-child that birth control is considered a medical essential that society must pay for? Is our government really so tone-deaf as to think this is anything close to acceptable?
Report comment to moderator
What Mr. Obama and people like Evan are doing are threaten the Churches. If you speak out against us, we will pass laws to take away your rights.
Mr. Obama has shown time and time agains that he is not a christian and that he desire to force the left moral values onto the Nation.
Report comment to moderator
I do not desire a theocracy. It degenerates into a holiness contest which paradoxically becomes a race to the bottom. We laugh and mock the Saudi Virtue/Vice police, yet ancient Israel was not too far off from that, no?
I am amazed that Protestants are hopping on the Catholic “conscious clause” and in general I think that is a good thing. I think most enmity/indifference to Catholicism perished long ago and whatever doubts or reservations you have about Catholic theology you must concede that even a broke clock is right twice a day.
As far as I know if the “hierarchy” of any nonCatholic denomination [yes, even LDS] ever said birth control was a no go it wasn’t publicized in the way that Humanae Vitae was in 68. (Please correct my error if I speak in one)
The Lambeth conference is a landmark due to Anglicans saying sex for the sake of sex alone was A-okay in their theology. That set the tone for the eventual acceptance of recreational sex unfettered by anyone’s moral code/judgment.
I even believe the Southern Baptists were originally supportive of Roe (but soon recanted that, and rightly so). Dr Richard Land wrote about that needed reversal quite eloquently.
Report comment to moderator
Is our culture really so anti-child that birth control is considered a medical essential that society must pay for? Is our government really so tone-deaf as to think this is anything close to acceptable?
—
All we have to do is look at china rules on children to get a understand the direction Mr. Obama and his people are heading.
Report comment to moderator
since killing babies goes against the Chrisitan Faith and Mr. OBama desire to kill babies by covering pills to abort babies. Would be a burden…
–
How in the world did Evens get that I want to establish a theocracy? what is happen is again those who worship at the seat of the government desire to force their moral values onto others.
Remeber Mr. Obama has it in ObamaCare the IRS is to throw people into jail or level a fine against you if you refuse to buy into ObamaCare.
Report comment to moderator
“Running a school or a hospital is not a central aspect of religious practice.”
If I’m not permitted to define what aspects of my beliefs constitute central aspects of religious practice, then I’m not really free to exercise it, am I?
That’s about like saying we have freedom of the kinds of speech that the government decides are important enough to be free. That violates the whole purpose and point of limiting government power over religion, or over speech.
It doesn’t say “free exercise [of religion] as defined by the courts.” It says “free exercise.”
Report comment to moderator
“Are you suggesting that the Free Exercise clause confers upon individuals the right to take private action to enjoin others’ conduct when they believe that such conduct is contrary to their religious convictions? ”
For the millionth time, not subscribing to a service that pays for others’ conduct is not “enjoining” it, any more than paying for it “requiring” it.
This is so obvious that it’s hard to believe that people who believe this are mistaken, rather than not being quite truthful.
Report comment to moderator
Running a school or a hospital is not a central aspect of religious practice.”
If I’m not permitted to define what aspects of my beliefs constitute central aspects of religious practice, then I’m not really free to exercise it, am I?
Thank you Pentamom! We’re traipsing very close to the officially-approved state churches and churchmen of Nazi Germany or current mainland China.
Good tie in too with the “campaign reforms” which have only shut down ordinary voters, blocked or overturned voter-approved ballot measures. I don’t know if a mass movement like Dr King’s could arise to challenge the govt today given all the restrictions and regulations on “speech”
Report comment to moderator
Still the Prot folks–who as I was once told were the Johnny Come Latelys to the proLife cause– must fight against a tradition of local not centralized church authority. Luther proclaimed ea man his own priest with the Bible as his sole guide.
We Baptists have no Vatican no matter what the Nashville folks tell you.
This reg risks a govt imposed definition of what constitutes approved, legitimate ministry. Soup kitches, CareNet clinics, drug detox outreach, retirement homes etc.. all those are easily viewed as being Christ’s hands extended to help heal or change the world.
Report comment to moderator
#9
So ultimately what we have here is not a FAILURE to communicate. We have a problem with “definitional power”. Who gets or has THE POWER to proclaim what is and is not a “core aspect of religious practice” and what does and does not SUBSTANTIALLY burden it.
If you wanna remake society don’t worry about the White House or any state or Federal legislature.
Just make sure you have 5 of 9 Supremes signed on with your ideology.
Which as you know ultimately is what this reverts down to.
We will see yet another exercise of “raw judicial power” the dissenters bemoaned in the Roe holding
Barack OBama and Bill Clinton were both full-time ConLaw profs. Makes me have way more respect for the Torts or Contracts guys, to be honest.
Report comment to moderator
If a church or ministry generates an itemized budget listing where the tithe goes, who is the govt to step in and say “That isn’t a core aspect of religious practice!”
We will probably see more and more ministry efforts going abroad while the state at all levels seeks greater control over things churches used to do. Makes me think of all the nuns and priests who were made to leave Cuba in 1961
Report comment to moderator
Just make sure you have 5 of 9 Supremes signed on with your ideology.
Which as you know ultimately is what this reverts down to
—
Which is a concern that we know have 5 Judges that can decide what will be the laws for this nation.
Report comment to moderator
Where did “core aspect” come into this discussion anyway? I mean, other than being used above, how did it come to be relevant to the discussion of freedom of religion? Baptizing by immersion or by sprinkling isn’t “core” to the Christian faith (baptism itself is, but not the means), but the government still has no right to determine what method is legal. Meeting at 10:30 Sunday morning isn’t core, but government still has no right to say “no meetings before 2 p.m.”
Report comment to moderator
But on the other hand, if every person can define “central aspects of religious practice,” and then claim that government has no power to regulate them, then we have lawless chaos.
For example, could Muslims say that honoring Sharia courts is a “central aspect of their religious practice,” and therefore the federal government has no jurisdiction over them on that matter?
Or if the Mormon church desired to return to polygamy, couldn’t they say that it is a “central aspect of their religious practice,” and therefore the government cannot constitutionally forbid it?
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – There has been an increase where when someone is dragged before the IRS and the IRS starts to collect money from them due to tax’s reason. The IRS demands the Church to return all tithes and offering of that person, in order for them to pay the IRS.
Report comment to moderator
For example, could Muslims say that honoring Sharia courts is a “central aspect of their religious practice,” and therefore the federal government has no jurisdiction over them on that matter?
—
The Federal Government is not ordering ever one to follow Sharia Courts…. Unlike ObamaCare.
Report comment to moderator
Or if the Mormon church desired to return to polygamy, couldn’t they say that it is a “central aspect of their religious practice,” and therefore the government cannot constitutionally forbid it?
—
The Federal Government is not ordering ever one to follow the return to polygamy, unlike ObamaCare.
Report comment to moderator
JJF — everything has a context. When I talk about not having the government define religious practices, because that would gut any actual meaning to free exercise, I haven’t forgotten everything about “compelling interests,” not to mention every other accepted principle that prevents the chaos you assert would follow if we didn’t allow the government to define the content of people’s religion for them.
So yes, actually, I do believe that any court decision that rests on the idea that Muslims are wrong to define sharia as a “central religious practice” would be extremely wrong-headed. The basis for applying the rule of existing civil law to Muslims lies elsewhere, such as in compelling interests, not to mention the whole rest of the constitution itself (whose very purpose is to define the scope and applicability of civil law to the citizens of the United States.)
So whether or not I want sharia, it remains essential to constitutional integrity to allow individuals and institutions, not the government, to define the content of “central religious practice.” From there, we can decide whether or not the free exercise clause should be held to include, or exclude, the free exercise of that particular central religious practice, based on *other* important concerns. So, yeah, if a Muslim lawyer stands before the Supreme Court and insists that sharia is a central religious practice, and the court’s opinion doesn’t dispute that, I’m not bothered.
And since I’m absolutely confident that there is no existing constitutional precedent that could *reasonably* be construed to say that the government should have the authority by bureaucratic fiat to violate a central religious tenet in order to force a private person or entity to subscribe for the purchase of a consumer good (no matter how wonderful or terrible that good) for a third party, I don’t think my qualification will “hurt” the outcome I’d like to see.
Report comment to moderator
And then there’s the whole point that the free exercise clause doesn’t say anything about “central practices.” Unless there’s a darn good, compelling, and constitutional reason, people should be free to exercise the most trivial and disputable aspects of their beliefs that could possibly be imagined.
I just happen to believe that it’s not really that hard to find compelling reasons to limit really destructive stuff, and anything that isn’t really destructive, isn’t anyone else’s business.
Report comment to moderator
#18 – Evan, I took issue with you instead of correcting Pastor Roy because I disagreed with you, not him. Is that clear enough?
Even presumed, “If that’s true…”
Evan, your “if… then” presumption was convaluted to the core. You are confused. Just keep reading #12 by Beth and drink lots of water.
Report comment to moderator
One thing is clear and undeniable, Evan. If anyone seeks a theocracy, it is Barack Obama, NOT conservative Christians:
* On October 7, 2007, candidate Obama addressed a church in South Carolina, saying: “Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics… Sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God… I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
Using political power in order to create a kingdom right here on earth. It does not take rocket science to identify that as theocratic in theme and ambition.
Report comment to moderator
Evan wrote, “The typical remedy for bad policy is to ask the legislature to change the law.”
How sad that educators and administrators must deal with such clearly bad policies (and even Evan agrees it this one bad policy) and silly legalistic over-reach by gov’t that they cannot spend time focusing on their mission to educate!
We need legislators who do good (or do nothing), and not harm. Leave us alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
—
An the Government is their place of worship…
Report comment to moderator
5mom (39/40):
You are technically correct. Jurisprudence on the free exercise clause does not expressly refer to “central practices.” Instead, it refers to “incidental” practices. Of course, by inference, those practices that are not “incidental” may fairly be referred to as “central” or “core.”
Also, the “compelling interest” test of Sherbert was overruled in Employment Division v. Smith. It is no longer an aspect of the legal framework for analyzing whether a government policy violates the free exercise clause. The “compelling interest” test has been included in RFRA, but RFRA only applies to federal government action.
And, concerning your last paragraph in (39), a a number of states already have laws that require what you allege is unconstitutional. The federal government may not be able to do so, but that concerns RFRA, not the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Religious entities should not be made to go against their consciences as the establishment clause of the First Amendment secures the right of the people. In the first clause the states and the people are protected from federal domination; individuals are protected from coercion in their religious conduct–the first clause allowing the states and the people to follow their will in matters of religion, the second guaranteeing the same liberty to individuals and the corporate persons they voluntarily compose. The first has as its object matters that are decided by the will of the constitutionally determined majority in the different states. The second involves matters decided by the will of each individual.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, you are arguing on a different level than most people here. They are arguing what they think the constitution should say, not precedent or what the SCOTUS will actually rule. I found your knowledge of the constitution and case law refreshing. I would argue that it is a substantial burden on free exercise and that there is no compelling government interest, so the regulation should be struck down.
Report comment to moderator
Dokimazete — exactly. A history of ignoring the actual content of the First Amendment in favor of spurious tests calculated primarily to extend government power and based in an Enlightenment view of religion as “rituals people like to do in private or thoughts inside their heads” is not a good reason to keep doing it.
Report comment to moderator
5mom:
You appear to be blatantly misrepresenting what Dokimazete (DM) said. The “compelling interest” test is an aspect of RFRA; it is absolutely NOT part of any relevant Constitutional inquiry. DM appears to be referring to my statements about RFRA. You have taken those comments out of context and twisted them to suggest that DM agrees with the lie that you keep attempting to perpetuate.
Go read the case of Employment Division v. Smith. It flatly rejects the use of the “compelling interest” test in the context of a free exercise analysis. Stop littering the comment section of this blog with blatant misrepresentations about the state of the law concerning the free exercise clause.
Report comment to moderator
Evan I agree with what you are saying regarding the law and SCOTUS. I wish, like Pentamom, they would rule this unconstitutional (or better have the executive change the policy), but case law and precedent seems to indicate no. My interpretation doesn’t really matter for what will happen.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, that’s a bit harsh. I can hardly have “misrepresented” what Dokimazete said, since I didn’t characterize it or represent it at all. I merely agreed with him(?) that you are leaning on existing law and precedent, and we are leaning on how the constitution should properly have been read and applied all along. Dokimazete is right that it doesn’t matter for what *will* happen, but that doesn’t change what is right and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
5mom:
I couldn’t care less what you think the law should be. In the real world, litigants have to argue their cases based on what the law IS. Besides, I think that the reasoning of Employment Division v. Smith to be pretty sound. It’s one of Justice Scalia’s masterpieces.
It also strikes me that you would oppose any legal framework that didn’t promote the interests of evangelical Christians to the disadvantage of other groups.
I also suspect that this has nothing to do with issues of conscience. It’s not lost on anyone that these cases are led by supporters of Rick Santorum. If this weren’t an election year, none of these cases would exist.
Report comment to moderator
“It also strikes me that you would oppose any legal framework that didn’t promote the interests of evangelical Christians to the disadvantage of other groups.”
Funny how something can strike you based on nothing I’ve said, no evidence, and contrary to reality. But go ahead, keep dealing with me on the basis of your beliefs about me rather than what I say. I’ll know when to quit trying to have an intelligent discussion with you a lot sooner, then.
“I couldn’t care less what you think the law should be.”
Excuse me, this is a discussion format. If you don’t care about what other people think, why are you here? And if you don’t care about what I think in particular, than you don’t have to pay any attention to me.
I’m not under any impression that my words here create some social effect that others need be bound by. I’m expressing my opinion based on the reasons I think good, and will continue to do so, regardless of your “caring” or lack thereof.
Report comment to moderator
“I also suspect that this has nothing to do with issues of conscience.”
Well, if you’re going to assume that everyone who disagrees with you a matter is simply lying about both their beliefs and their motives, there really isn’t much point talking about it, is there?
Nice to know you’re a mind reader, at any rate. It will save me time having to write anything in response to you.
Report comment to moderator
5mom:
The bottom line is this. You suggested that my analysis was wrong because my free exercise analysis was wrong because I failed to consider whether the government’s interest in issuing the the regulations served a “compelling interest.” In response, I pointed out that Employment Division v. Smith held to the contrary, i.e., that there is no “compelling interest” prong to a free exercise analysis. In the face of that, you persisted in asserting that the regulation was unconstitutional because it did not serve a “compelling interest.”
So, I hope that you can sense my exasperation. Only when I chastised you did you back away from your incorrect assertion, and then suggest that you were merely stating what you felt the law should be.
Regarding my other inferences about you, I draw that from your above statements concerning your view that the law ought to bend to your subjective opinions as to what the law should be. On the other hand, you would deny to Muslims the very right that you claim that you ought to have–the right for the government to bend to your subjective belief as to what you believe constitutes a core aspect of religious practice.
And I do think it’s odd that this has arisen in an election year. Nearly 30 states have similar provisions, although the contours vary a bit from state to state. But not until now do we hear outcries concerning how this violates the conscience of religious employers. I’d be more persuaded about the legitimacy of these complaints had they arisen before.
Report comment to moderator
“On the other hand, you would deny to Muslims the very right that you claim that you ought to have–the right for the government to bend to your subjective belief as to what you believe constitutes a core aspect of religious practice.”
On which of my statements do you base that assertion? Would you please quote me on that? I may have said something that could be construed to mean that, and if so, I’d like to clarify, because that wouldn’t have been my intent.
Because that’s not at all what I believe. In fact, I think I said the opposite — that whatever a Muslim decides his core religious belief is should be legally respected as such rather than the court ruling on what is and is not a core religious belief, but that whether or not something is a “core religious belief” is not the sum total of the question of what is permissible.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!