In another thread you said you hadn't heard that many Christian activists defend non-traditional religious free exercise practices. Here's another example if you're interested:
The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty recently won a unanimous victory for a witch, a Satanist, and a racial separatist who claimed they were "denied access to religious literature and ceremonial items and denied time to worship."
quote:The law says states that receive federal money must accommodate prisoners' religious beliefs, with such things as special haircuts or meals, unless wardens can show that the government has a compelling reason not to.
The court's unanimous ruling addressed a narrow issue: whether the law as written is an unconstitutional government promotion of religion. It is not, justices decided, leaving the door open to future legal challenges on other grounds.
"Religion plays a vital role in rehabilitation," said Derek Gaubatz, director of litigation for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a religious liberty law firm that represents inmates.
Many states have contested the law on grounds that inmate requests could make it harder to manage prisons, and the court appeared concerned as well.
The law "does not elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench in announcing the decision.
...
Tuesday's decision overturns a ruling by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had struck down part of the law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, on grounds it violated the separation of church and state.
If you look at the Board of Advisors on the "About Us" page on the Beckett site, there's a lot of fairly conservative Christians represented their. And, of course, the group's establishment clause stands are pretty similar to those you've found objectionable in the past.
It's a good example of a very common, little known dichotomy in First Amendment advocacy: an establishment clause position that primarily benefits the mainstream and a free exercise position that benefits the non-mainstream. Of course, I'm not overlooking the fact that such decisions can benefit mainstream religions as well.
Just thought you might be interested.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I admit I only looked at the page you linked, but is there an easy way to find the religion of all the Board of Advisors? Only two were obviously Christian from reading that page alone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Some of the names I know: Hatch, Hyde, Carter (If it's the Carter I'm thinking of), the Archbishop, and Fr. Neuhaus are Christians. There's a rabbi, of course.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'm curious as to what you think my take on the establishment thing is.
Also, I'm not KOM. I don't think that people who are Christian are necessarily bad or deceived or whatever. I do find these groups interesting, but I don't know that they touch on the main point I was making with my statment, which was that a judge violating the religious rights of non-mainstream religious people is likely not going to suffer for it. I never had any doubt that there would be a significant number of Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Other) who would be upset even though it was about a religion that don't believe in and may not even respect. However, I still pretty doubtful that the majority of people would look with disfavor on this.
It's like the anti-gay bigotry thing. There are plenty of people who oppose gay agenda stuff but are not bigots. But then you've got a large segment of the population in Texas.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You hadn't heard of it, seemed curious, and it hit the front page of the post. I've never even implied that I think you "think that people who are Christian are necessarily bad or deceived or whatever."
The interesting point is the dichotomy between free exercise and establishment.
As to your take on establishment clause, I think I've got a pretty good handle on it. This group is defending "under God" in the pledge, for one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, The point I'm trying to get is that I don't think that showing me how isolated groups of conservative mainstream religious are trying to protect the religious freedom of non-mainstream religions necessarily should affect my perspective of the large majority of mainstream religious being unconcerned or supportive of people doing this.
I didn't see the PoA thing on my read through. Yeah, I'm obviously against that. A least some of the stuff they were saying about religious schools I agreed with though and I support vouhcers and such, as well as other things many people would consider crossing the establishment line.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point I'm trying to get is that I don't think that showing me how isolated groups of conservative mainstream religious are trying to protect the religious freedom of non-mainstream religions necessarily should affect my perspective of the large majority of mainstream religious being unconcerned or supportive of people doing this.
First, as I pointed out in the other thread, this is not isolated. Dobson's group does this, Robertson's group does this - in short, the people who do things you consider "shoving their religion down other people's throats" are at the very forefront of protecting non-mainstream religious rights. The names involved in this group include some of the leaders of what's commonly known as the "religious right." This is a huge sea change from the 1940s-60s, one that started in the 70s and has continually expanded since then.
Second, this is an example. Again, you seemed interested and it was brand new. I won't bother in the future.
Third, as best I can tell, you hadn't even heard of these efforts. You expressed doubts about their extent. I gave one example in the previous thread but didn't feel like doing a whole research project. Another example popped up on the home page of my web browser and I posted a thread about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, As I said, I do find it interesting, and I'm always looking to expand my perspectives. However, I did take this in the context of the earlier disagreement, so I tried to tie it in. I also thought it would be interesting to explore the various interpretations of the ideas of establishments of religion.
I don't know, would the correct response have been. "Hmmm...that's interesting. Thanks." and then let the thread die?