Is Religious Liberty Whatever Anyone Says It Is?

[trotsky]

http://religiondispatches.org/is-religious-liberty-whatever-anyone-says-it-is/

Between last week’s Supreme Court hearing on the challenge to the contraceptive mandate accommodation by the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits, and Georgia’s attempt to pass an expansive religious liberty bill, it’s clear that we’re at a pivotal moment in the contentious debate over exactly what constitutes “religious liberty.”

We’ve moved beyond any nuanced conversation about the parameters of the right of faith-based actors to claim exemptions from broadly applicable laws and into wide reaching claims that religious liberty is essentially anything anyone who has a religious objection says it is.

...

The upshot, as Garrett Eps noted in The Atlantic, is that when it comes to questions of religious freedom that involve women and sex, “any public policy that offends a ‘traditional’ American religious sensibility—mostly meaning certain strains of conservative Christianity—is inherently suspect.”

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Pretty much so...

It shouldn't be, but there is no nuance left in any political discourse.

"Define your terms..." used to be the first thing in any debate or discourse, but nowadays that just confuses things.

[Lordquinton]

2. Recent discussions have revealed an interesting angle on that

The terms lack definition by desuon, and cannot be defined and if you ask for any, you clearly don't understand the topic... Or something.

[TygrBright]

3. Isn't every liberty? n/t

[trotsky]

4. Not particularly, I don't think.

You kind of need a legislature or even better, a court, to agree with you. The context here is the recent insistence (and moderate success) that the right to discriminate and the right to restrict someone else's healthcare options are protected by "religious liberty."

[TygrBright]

5. Similar arguments are made with respect to guns, speech, etc. frequently. n/t

[trotsky]

8. Sure they are, but as I noted in the post you responded to...

The context here is the recent insistence (and moderate success) that the right to discriminate and the right to restrict someone else's healthcare options are protected by "religious liberty."

Or as the article also mentions:

The key words here are that the plaintiffs “have said” the accommodation is a threat to their religious liberty, seemingly removing the government and the courts from having any responsibility to decide what is and what isn’t a reasonable burden on religious liberty, even though seven of the eight appellate courts that heard challenges to the mandate dismissed this idea as outlandish.

[Major Nikon]

11. Each one certainly needs to be defined

But I know of no rational definition for any form of liberty which includes the unfettered right to infringe on other people's liberty.

[mr blur]

6. Isn't it whatever La Clinton says it is?

Or was it Donald Trump? It's easy to get them confused - they both know so much about religion and they both luuurve their Bibles so much.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Yes, because religion is whatever people say it is.

Because it's made up.

[trotsky]

9. Nuh uh.

*My* religion is god's truth.
*Yours* is made up.

[Iggo]

10. Recently, yes.

It's the freedom to fuck over whoever you want to fuck over and blame it on god.

[Angry Dragon]

12. Why do you think they call it 'practicing religion'??

No one has ever gotten it right