Is the United States becoming a theocracy?

Attempted diversion predicated upon paranoia. The United States following the rule of law is not running the risk of becoming a police state.

Christian theology was one of the influences that informed the Founding Fathers, predominantly theists who affirmed the principle that the United States is not a Christian nation.

 

Then you blow me off with the “attempted diversion” crap, we have nothing to discuss.

 

Well let's first take a look at the part of the First Amendment that deals with religion and go from there.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

So we see that the "free exercise" of religion is a constitutional right. That right is not above the Constitution; it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. And I believe that the "free exercise" means more than going to church on Sunday or saying a prayer before a meal. Anybody may believe whatever they believe. But not everybody in this world may exercise those beliefs. There is a difference. You can exercise those beliefs in America. And I think exercising those beliefs means that a person may live their daily lives in a manner that is compatible with the precepts of their religion. I think it means that you may work and earn a living and not be compelled to help others carry out a practice that runs directly against your religious beliefs. I think it also means that the government may not force you to perform services that are in direct violation of the religion you practice.

Now it seems appropriate at this point to point out that there are limits to that "free exercise", just as there are limits to our other freedoms. Those limits generally relate to causing physical harm. As examples, marital rape and domestic violence are outlawed in all 50 states. You cannot rape or beat your wife and claim the protection of the free exercise of religion as a defense. Similarly, you cannot withhold lifesaving medical care from a child as a free exercise of religion. If the child dies, you're going to prison for manslaughter. You cannot mutilate your daughter's genitals and claim the protection of the free exercise of religion either. You cannot have sex with or marry a 12 year old using the free exercise of religion as a defense. Come to think of it, you cannot break any of our criminal laws using the free exercise of religion as a defense. This is where the line is drawn on the free exercise of religion.

The laws that some states have passed that prohibit the denial of services based upon religious freedom are not criminal laws; they are administrative laws and regulations dealing with the conduct of business. Those laws and regulations are intended to prohibit discrimination in the market place against any group for any reason. But "for any reason" runs up against the First Amendment which guarantees the "free exercise" of religion. It's a bit of a conundrum because whoever the losing side of this argument may be could make the claim that their rights have been violated by the decision. But in the final analysis, we don't ask if the Constitution is constitutional. We don't ask if the Constitution lives up to the requirements of a state law. Instead, we ask if state laws live up to the requirements of the Constitution. And we accept that laws, whether we like them or not, must meet the requirements of the Constitution or they'll be overturned. And so it is the supremacy of the Constitution which promises the "free exercise" of religion that prevails in the case of the web designer.

This outcome doesn't mean we're turning into a theocracy. It doesn't mean that the United States hates anyone and wishes to harm them. It doesn't signal the resumption of witch trials. Let's not get caught up in hysterics. The decision itself is technical. It is "constructionist." It is made dispassionately.

As I explained earlier, I have no religious belief that gives me a dog in the fight. Where I am strident is in a belief in the rule of law and in a belief that a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution serves to protect and preserve the hard earned rights bequeathed to us by our Founders. And if there are shortcomings in the Constitution, they also gave us a process to amend it, a process that has been successfully used 27 times in our history. So if we want to guarantee the free exercise of religion, except in the market place, or if we want to guarantee a nationwide right to choose an abortion, the remedy is with constitutional amendments.

 

If you are unable to challenge the facts I have provided, you have nothing to discuss.

 

You have no facts, only political posturing.

You blew me off; I am blowing you off.

 

You are working to support the view that the constitution is beneath the numerous religious beliefs that any individual throughout America might claim.

It just doesn't work that way, as if anyone can void the law by claiming religious exemption, then the constitution is garbage. It's as if whole sections of the constitution come with the phrase, "if the individual wants to". We have employment law - if the boss wants to. We have public accommodation law, unless the operator doesn't want to. You can't have a naked pig roast in the front yard - unless you want to.

One can't write stuff like public accommodation law or employment law or speech law or land use law, etc. and then tell Americans that they may void that by claiming it is counter to whatever the heck they see as their religion.


Also, your whole paragraph on harm doesn't hold water. If religion is above the constitution (as the USSC declared), then religious households can run their marriage according to their religion. Let's take real examples, not your LGBTQ paranoia. Can female genital mutilation (such as is practiced by some religions) be banned? Do you have any idea of what the religions of the world see as not just legitimate, but important to their beliefs?

I'd point out that we have Sharia law in America. All that is necessary is for the two sides to agree. These courts do come under US law, but there is no clear line when one decides that religion is above the law - as the USSC has stated. Where do you draw the line on what Sharia allows if religion is above the constitution?

 

I tried to be clear. There is a line drawn on the free exercise of religion when it crosses into criminal acts, and we all agree that that is a reasonable limitation. I was in no way suggesting the opposite. The free exercise of religion is permitted until an act violates our criminal laws. Period.

Also, I do not believe that the website designer case opens the door to carte blanche discriminate against LGBTQ "because we want to." I think the Court's ruling has a very narrow scope.

First of all, in the case of the website designer, or in the case of the wedding cake baker, it's a pretty unique circumstance. The customer is asking the seller to use his/her own hand - their own talents - to create something that they don't want to create because it celebrates or promotes a practice that their religion teaches is wrong. As I have already talked about, I think the First Amendment instructs us to respect the free "exercise" of religion.

Secondly, the Court's decision did not allow for the denial of any necessities of life, like employment, public accommodation, or housing, food, or medical needs. Neither the website designer or the baker were the only resources in town. There were plenty of others who would accommodate them.

And thirdly, is the credibility of the web designer's claim. I think that the Court was fully aware that Christianity is a recognized, established religion that many believe in around the world. They were fully aware that Christianity has a Bible wherein there are prohibitions against homosexuality. All of this is common knowledge. They may have been aware that not all Christians agree with those prohibitions, but that a lot of them do. The recognition of the these facts gives weight - or substantial evidence - that the web designer declined to develop the website out of conscience, and that he was exercising his First Amendment right to live according to his religion, an established religion that is 2000 years old. By contrast, I don't think the Court would have recognized any legitimacy to Will and Seth declaring that we were the founders of Will and Seth's Church of the Forum, and that the First Amendment guarantee to exercise our religion entitled us to deny employment, deny housing, deny food, and deny medical care to LGBTQ people.

So no, I don't believe the decision opens the door to any of that.

I am not paranoid about anybody or anything. I don't think like that, and I don't live like that. When you suggest that, I feel like you didn't read the last paragraph in my last reply to you. So here it is again ...

Where I am strident is in a belief in the rule of law and in a belief that a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution serves to protect and preserve the hard earned rights bequeathed to us by our Founders. And if there are shortcomings in the Constitution, they also gave us a process to amend it, a process that has been successfully used 27 times in our history. So if we want to guarantee the free exercise of religion, except in the market place, or if we want to guarantee a nationwide right to choose an abortion, the remedy is with constitutional amendments.

 

I've pointed out no case that would be in criminal law as far as I know. All our law on public accommodation, employment, etc., is all exactly within the issue the USSC brought up.

There is NO narrowing of scope. And, it is NOT limited to LGBTQ. It's also not limited to public accommodation, as the same issues and similar law show up in employment.

There is NOTHING unique about the specific case. We have people wanting to discriminate on lots of different factors - including religion itself.

Being the only resource in town is TOTALLY irrelevant. Nor is the necessity of the product or service.

Exactly. The court accepts the establishment of one religion. And, YOU suggest the government would reject OTHER religious.

Where in the constitution does it give the USSC the right to decide which are the "correct" religions - the ones that the government gets to view as being established?

This is another clear demonstration of how their ruling is clearly in violation of the 1st amendment.

 

It's been a good discussion, Will. Let's agree to disagree, shall we? Until next time ...