The Religious Liberty Task Force is About Discrimination
Attorney General Jeff Sessions launched the Religious Liberty Task Force in an effort to strengthen the hand of conservative Christianity and weaken the rights of everyone else. Anyone who reads the Constitution knows this. Those who support such Christian shenanigans have to know they are being dishonest.
The ongoing ploy to redefine religious freedom is a means to provide privilege to one particular sect of Christianity and to force government to sanction discrimination on their behalf. If asked, "Do you support class discrimination?" a member of the religious right would answer, "No. I merely want the right to discriminated against those I dislike." And here I thought the civil rights movement, abolishing slavery and segregation, decided religious views against blacks do not trump the rights of black people to full citizenship.
As the link explains, Carefully orchestrated language perpetuates the notion that someone's religious freedom cannot be limited in any fashion.
The Constitution does not elevate religious freedom of one person over the rights of all others. It does not hold the rights of one person's religious freedom over another's religious views or over the equal protection of another's civil rights.
The clever use of language by Sessions and other is trying to convince the public that conservative religious views have more protection in the Constitution than the rights of anyone else or everyone else. They hide this behind the belief in "originalists", judges who claim they know what the original authors of the Constitution meant but did not say.
Taking away equal opportunity in the U.S. is the opposite of traditional values.
I followed your link. It is nothing more than an opinion piece in the Des Moines Register. Perhaps you can send the author a link to your opinion piece and she can then reference it a future opinion piece she writes.
ReplyDeleteHer opinion and your opinion are the same; only left-wing religious principles are worth Constitutional protections. The examples she cites are (1) access to contraceptives from a pharmacist whose religious beliefs don't allow him or her to dispense contraceptives and (2) homosexual adoption.
I don't read in the Constitution that a pharmacist is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. We all know that if you can't get your "Pills" at pharmacist A then there are at least 20 other pharmacists willing to fill your contraceptive prescription. We already know that a Christian baker has a Constitutional right to refuse to back a cake and decorate it with writings or symbols that would violate his First Amendment religious liberty rights. Feel free to read the decisions of the SCOTUS in the past year.
As for homosexual adoptions, there is unquestionably a right for a person or institution to not place children with all sorts of couples. There is no Constitutional right to adoption for ANYONE. What is a current fact is that there are very few infant adoptions taking place and only slightly more adoptions of older children. The abortion industry has taken care of the infants.
I applaud the goals and objectives of the Religious Liberty Task Force. Our country needs to understand their rights under the Constitution. Even more so, some groups need to understand that they can't infringe upon those rights under the guise of "free thinking".
Matt--"I don't read in the Constitution that a pharmacist is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment..."
DeleteI don't read in the Constitution any one person's rights are so much more important than mine that my rights are taken away.
Actually, there is an ordering of "rights", if you will. Some are absolute, some are limited and some are just privileges, not rights.
ReplyDeleteWhat you think of as a right may not actually be a right. Take the 2 examples presented by the Des Moines Registrar opinionist.
Case 1, the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for a pill deemed morally illicit by the pharmacist's Faith, i.e. Church teaching. The teaching is not a recent development. It has been the Faith's teaching forever, or at least when these types of contraceptives became available through a pharmacy. The chances are pretty good, like 99%+, that the prescription will be filled that day by a different pharmacist, probably at the same pharmacy. Then, we are discussing someone's hurt feelings or slight inconvenience as opposed to the First Amendment Religious Lliberty rights of the pharmacist.
Case 2, the homosexual adoption. This shows the massive intolerance by people like Jon, unless Jon renounces what has happened to numerous Catholic adoption and foster care services nationwide. Instead of allowing these diocesan and archdiocesan adoption agencies and foster care arms of the Church continue its ministerial work, they were shut down because they refused to place children with unmarried people or with homosexual people. Rather than just omit these services from the list of government-approved adoption agencies or foster care agencies, they were forced to close their doors or face massive lawsuits for "discrimination". I don't know if there was a case appealed up to the SCOTUS but here we have a case where the left dances on a jig on the slippery slope of freedom; a slope they often ignore until it comes time to have some semblance of an argument for "their" liberties. Still, it is clear that the Church can run adoption agencies and foster care agencies. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services.cfm
Reading your long posts there is a clear summary. The Religious Liberty thing is about giving religious people the power to discriminate. If religious people had prevailed in the 60's we would still have segregated schools and water fountains. Mixed race marriages would be against the law.
DeleteIf you want to talk in sound bites, let's do it. The far left has no respect for religion or morals. Discrimination against religious people was only topped recently by the assault on their Constitutional rights. Any baker can refuse to bake a cake for wedding; something the left thought was a constitutional right if you were a homosexual couple buying the cake. Go figure. The baker was the one with the violated rights.
DeleteGee Jon, read history at all? The 60s civil rights movement was led by many prominent Catholics and Protestants; probably the same activists who went on to fight a great injustice; abortion. I understand you are morally devastated by the existence of both Christianity and the presidency of Donald Trump in your lifetime, but try to spend some time in reality. Davies high school in Fargo is named after federal district Judge Ronald Davies who in 1957 integrated Central High School in Little Rock, AK. Judge Davies was also a very orthodox Roman Catholic His thought was the prevailing thought among Christian conservatives as well as liberals, Jews and others.
DeleteDo you make up your arguments without any thought to being so thoroughly refuted? Or are you running for federal office in Iowa? Segregated schools? Segregated water fountains? A law against interracial marriage?
Let's engage in a little history lesson going back to 1962, only 56 years ago. We were both alive. I gleaned the following from WikiPedia:
In the 1962 Democratic primary, Wallace finished first, ahead of State Senator Ryan DeGraffenried Sr., and taking 35 percent of the vote. In the runoff, Wallace won the nomination with 55 percent of the vote. As no Republican filed to run, this all but assured Wallace of becoming the next governor. He won a crushing victory in the November general election, taking 96 percent of the vote.
As noted above, Democratic dominance had been achieved by disenfranchising most blacks and many poor whites in the state for decades, which lasted until years after federal civil rights legislation was passed in 1964 and 1965.
Wallace took the oath of office on January 14, 1963, standing on the gold star marking the spot where, nearly 102 years earlier, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as provisional president of the Confederate States of America. In his inaugural speech, Wallace said:
In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
That's your party, your guy. And that was the 1960s. It appears as if we had let Democrats win back then, we'd have segregated schools and a law against mixed race marriage.
Where do you draw the line Noah? Is it OK to kill apostates and heretics (it happens in some countries)? How about if I sincerely believe that adulterers deserve to be stoned to death (that would thin out Congress a bit, eh)?
DeleteThe reality is that this is a task force to enable bible thumping -- the imposition of religion on unwilling others.
Tell you what Noah, I'll "respect" your religious beliefs -- even defend your right to hold them -- so long as you don't try to force them on me. How about you do the same?
The COTUS specifies that the USA is a secular democratic republic. Unfortunately, the current administration is pandering to its religious right base, and the country is creeping towards becoming a white Christian nationalist dictatorship.
I've carefully read the thoughts of Madison and Jefferson on church-state issues, and I am left in no doubt that the agenda of this "task force" is both unconstitutional, and consequently, unAmerican too. More unfortunately, it looks like Kavanaugh will be a zealous religiously activist if appointed to the SCOTUS, and our country will slide towards theocracy.
As I've remarked before, the Founders must be spinning in their graves!
Matt -- "Any baker can refuse to bake a cake for a wedding.."
DeleteExactly my point. The Religious Liberty thing is about discrimination. The religious right has been successful in whittling away the rights of others so they can practice discrimination of those they do not like. This is not new. Slavery was successfully justified by religion for over 100 years of our history. That did not make it right. It only meant religious people won the right to discriminate for over 100 years.
Matt 2:47 You talk and talk--never get to the point. The point is that slavery and segregation was justified by religion. Refusing to serve legitimate requests for medicine, wedding cakes, etc., are being justified by "Religious Liberty". Discrimination of those some religious people do not like is being justified on the basis of religion. No matter how many posts you put up trying to justify this do not change a thing.
DeleteBeaser, Geaser, since its not your real name ... Where do I draw the line? You went on to answer the question you posed so I'll just move on to the next question. Meanwhile, I am in full-throated defense of the US Constitution and the Amendments. I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, the 3rd, the 4th (very important in today's electronic world), 5th Amendment, 6th ... you get the picture.
DeleteWhen you started spewing something about white, Christian nationalist dictatorship, I knew I was dealing with an unhinged individual. It's like someone on the left just left the blender on and people started dropping words in it and, poof! "white, Christian, nationalist dictatorship" came out.
Please try to control yourself, think clearly and deal with reality.
Recently, a member of the Trump administration was refused service at a restaurant. On multiple (hundreds) of occasions people with MAGA hats or t-shirts were assaulted or refused service at bars, restaurants, stores, etc.
DeleteDamn but I have not yet read a blog from you that pounded the intolerant left. You seem to have a hatred thing for Christians.
"Damn but I have not read a blog from you that pounded the intolerant left."
DeleteGood point, I'll pound a little. That restaurant should have served Sarah Huckabee like any other customer. The restaurant, and the cake baker, obtain health certificates from their local governments. In that way, they are operating with the permission of the general public and should serve the general public, not just those people they approve of. But, the cake story, and the balky pharmacists, communicate the principle discrimination against those who are disliked is OK. Now, Democrats are not serving Republicans. Soon perhaps you will go into a McDonalds and will be recognized as a Catholic--no service of Catholics at McDonalds. Refusing service to anyone on the basis of race, creed, politics and such will not have a happy ending.
You miss the point. It has nothing to do with health certificates. A health certificate does not trump a Constitutional right. I have a Constitutional right not to create a piece of art extolling the virtues of anal sex. I have that same constitutional right not to create a piece of art or bake goods extolling homosexual marriage (that word has religious and civil meanings). I don't have to write, "Happy Wedding Day, John and Jeff" since it is obvious it goes against my religious rights. Nowhere does any of this state one does not like the party being discriminated. The higher calling is to obey God. One might say that discrimination is a form of liking someone since we are not cooperating in their misguided act.
DeleteRegardless, no conservative Protestant or Catholic or Jewish organization or individual is going to refuse service to Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, etc. based on their being Black, Hispanic, etc. You are spouting a losing argument there. But a t-shirt company, a bakery, a billboard company, a printer, etc. can all refuse business from anyone if they disagree with the content based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
I hope you agree that I can refuse to print a t-shirt that states, "I hate niggers" on it based on my First Amendment rights to not be forced to say or express something I find repugnant. What I can't do is refuse to serve a Black person at my restaurant because I hate Black people. There is no right to do that in our Constitution.
Your religion blinds you so badly you cannot see the point. If a large group in the U.S. came to follow a religion that saw breaking bread with or for Catholics is a mortal sin, and the constituted a majority of people who work in restaurants, you would not be served. Oh, you might be able to pick up food at the greasy back door as black people used to do. You'd be happy with that, right, because "The higher calling is to obey God." What I'm speaking of was the law of the land for most of 200 years. Now it is coming back in the form of "God is offended and I will have sinned if I am required to write 'Congratulations Jim and Joe' on a wedding cake." You asked me if I have read history. Have you?
DeleteActually, my religion opens my eyes very wide so I can see the plight of others, have empathy and reach beyond my own wants and desires to help others. More so, I am careful not to force a discussion or practice of my religion on others, all the while not shying away from sharing my faith in both verbal and nonverbal ways.
ReplyDeleteWhile I question your knowledge of a "mortal sin", let's follow that line of reasoning since you seem to think you've got me boxed in a corner. Mortal sins include missing Mass for a Sunday or Holy Day obligation, apostasy, murder, etc. I only mention those 3 by name in the hopes of illustrating my point and your shortcoming. Catholics do not advocate for missing Mass as a civil or criminal offense. Even the great sin of apostasy is not in our civil or criminal playbook. Those are mortal sins and harm the individual immensely yet they, to my knowledge, have never been criminal or civil offenses in the USA. Murder, on the other hand, is a capital offense in addition to being a mortal sin. Well, the murder of unborn children is not a criminal act at this point in time due to High Court hijinx. Only 9 votes were cast in Roe v. Wade; hardly a national referendum on abortion.
Recent history has pointed to the fact that the far left, of which you are, is responsible for selective serving of restaurant patrons, including but not limited to WH Communications official Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She is simply the most high profile person to be "Rosa Parks"-ed by the intolerant left. And it's not simply food. Cars are vandalized with pro-Trump bumper stickers. Antifa picks up weapons against Christian and conservative groups and uses them to inflict bodily harm. We are still waiting for Pelosi, Schumer, Heitkamp, Clinton or Lindgren to comdemn such violence.
Please, the worst you'll get from the right is a directed prayer and a flashing of rosary beads.
Until now, I never understood how completely blocked and arrested you intellectual abilities are. You are unable to comprehend that Christianity did not exist until recently in human history. You are unable to comprehend that new religions or new versions of old ones pop up every year, just as Christianity popped up out of nowhere. A new religion can pop up that discriminates against you and your religion. The new religion can seem just as real as yours seem to you. Sadly, you are unable to grasp this simple evidence from history.
Delete