Religion and gov't: Can the gov't enforce action against religious belief?

[John_Brian_K]

Yes, I know I'm throwing up some strawman arguments here. I'm sorta testing the boundaries of the idea of working with 'public good.' I guess I'm starting with extreme examples to define the outside and then sorta work inward.

I guess my concern is that we are a nation of laws. And how the letter of the law is written matters a great deal. I'm guessing here, but I think if you polled the writers of the immanent domain law they may think that it would be silly to consider that anyone would even think of forcing someone to sell property for a developer could buy it from the gov't to build a shopping mall. And yet that is how it's being used in some cases.

Right now any of my "fear-based strawman" arguments seem extreme. But what about 15, 20, 30 years from now? I'm not so sure that these ideas might seem quite so crazy then. That said, I don't know how else to reasonably determine when to infringe on religious freedom but using this method. Anticipating your next argument perhaps: Just because it might be abused three decades from now is not an excuse to throw out any hope of establishing a standard today.

I would only hope to strongly emphasis that 'public good' does NOT equal what the majority want. Too often I fear people assume that if the majority wants this, then it is what we should do. And related: is what would be good for the majority of the public.

I firmly believe that this is one of the distinct differences between a republic and democracy. The republic is tasked with looking out for everyone, not just the majority. And I fear that too much of the gov't right now is only interested in appeasing the majority, not protecting the minority or looking for the greater good for everyone. And this is why is makes me nervous to have a nebulous concept of 'public good' as the standard. I worry too much that those we elect will not do the right thing.

(Disclaimer: This is NOT an attack on one side or the other. While I tend to lean more conservative than liberal (especially economically), I worry about both sides. For example, I'm religiously apposed to gay marriage. Yet I see no reason beyond religion to deny it and probably would not vote against it in polls. There is no 'public good' that is achieved from a secular stand point by denying it in my opinion.)

They are not strawman examples FWIW. They are simply examples. Not everything has to be a 'strawman' or a red herring.

[billms]

no, not that - i was referring to the fact that i cited back to the start of this thread where you began the subtext of ignoring punctuation (i.e. "Land of the 'free'")

granted the traditional pot kettle black would have been shorter but i rarely go with the shortest route in a discussion

i never thought you were an america basher - i assumed you were a libertarian - please correct me if i'm wrong - and under that assumption i was pointing you to libertarian paradise - what more could a place offer a libertarian that what rawanda has today?

[John_Brian_K]

no, not that - i was referring to the fact that i cited back to the start of this thread where you began the subtext of ignoring punctuation (i.e. "Land of the 'free'")

granted the traditional pot kettle black would have been shorter but i rarely go with the shortest route in a discussion

i never thought you were an america basher - i assumed you were a libertarian - please correct me if i'm wrong - and under that assumption i was pointing you to libertarian paradise - what more could a place offer a libertarian that what rawanda has today?

Liberal?

lol

WOW you misread that one.

I tend to consider myself pretty conservative, but like to think I am open minded enough to accept view points from both sides. When the punches are being thrown...I typically side with the conservatives.

Sorry I got so snarky. I wish we could bring back the ignore thread option. I really do HATE talking politics or religion online, but it has been a slow topic day on here and I find myself sucked into the political type discussions.

[lesgoblu02]

Liberal does not equal Libertarian.

[chasfh]

I can only speak anecdotally on the matter. I've personally known a few women who contracted STD's their husbands picked up. I'm sure there are plenty of men who have gotten them too after Ruby took her love to town.

Again, I'm not advocating for felony laws against adultery. I think it should be a civil matter. But we're contrasting this against another law that I find an intrusion which is using "public good" for force a church to use their own private funds to finance someone else's private activities which are in violation of long established church doctrine.

I thought the compromise was that the insurance company would pay for it out of their funds, not out of church funds?

No matter -- I hear what you're saying. I guess my response is that contraception has been long established as beneficial to women's health and is subject to at least the same coverage as, say, Viagra.

Seriously, though -- I believe if a church is going to operate as a business in the public realm, they have to adhere to all the same business rules as other businesses. Whatever health care coverage mandates are required of other businesses, it's fair to require those of church businesses. I agree that mandates on church businesses should not be more onerous than on other businesses, but they should be at least equivalent. This is especially true considering that many people employed by churches are not of the same faith as the church employer, and thus are not even subject to inside church law as it stands. I also don't believe such requirements constitute an inhibition of faith since the church is operating their business in the public realm and not as part of the private practice of religious faith.

In summary, I believe American law should supersede church law in this case.

[John_Brian_K]

Liberal does not equal Libertarian.

I misread his post.

[chasfh]

Yes, I know I'm throwing up some strawman arguments here. I'm sorta testing the boundaries of the idea of working with 'public good.' I guess I'm starting with extreme examples to define the outside and then sorta work inward.

I guess my concern is that we are a nation of laws. And how the letter of the law is written matters a great deal. I'm guessing here, but I think if you polled the writers of the immanent domain law they may think that it would be silly to consider that anyone would even think of forcing someone to sell property for a developer could buy it from the gov't to build a shopping mall. And yet that is how it's being used in some cases.

Right now any of my "fear-based strawman" arguments seem extreme. But what about 15, 20, 30 years from now? I'm not so sure that these ideas might seem quite so crazy then. That said, I don't know how else to reasonably determine when to infringe on religious freedom but using this method. Anticipating your next argument perhaps: Just because it might be abused three decades from now is not an excuse to throw out any hope of establishing a standard today.

I would only hope to strongly emphasis that 'public good' does NOT equal what the majority want. Too often I fear people assume that if the majority wants this, then it is what we should do. And related: is what would be good for the majority of the public.

I firmly believe that this is one of the distinct differences between a republic and democracy. The republic is tasked with looking out for everyone, not just the majority. And I fear that too much of the gov't right now is only interested in appeasing the majority, not protecting the minority or looking for the greater good for everyone. And this is why is makes me nervous to have a nebulous concept of 'public good' as the standard. I worry too much that those we elect will not do the right thing.

(Disclaimer: This is NOT an attack on one side or the other. While I tend to lean more conservative than liberal (especially economically), I worry about both sides. For example, I'm religiously apposed to gay marriage. Yet I see no reason beyond religion to deny it and probably would not vote against it in polls. There is no 'public good' that is achieved from a secular stand point by denying it in my opinion.)

This is a fine and reasonable reply, and your points are pretty defensible. I would only responded to the bold-faced part that if these exact same "public good" questions come up 15 to 30 years from now, we can use the standards of 15 to 30 years from now to evaluate them versus, as you allude to, establishing public policy on these points today in anticipation of mores changing that drastically.