Freedom of religion is safe

[cbayer]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-religious-liberty-20120617,0,6967593.story

EDITORIAL

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops and some non-Catholic allies would have you believe this fundamental liberty is under attack, but their claims are greatly exaggerated.

June 17, 2012

Is religious freedom suddenly under attack in America? That's what the nation's Roman Catholic bishops and some non-Catholic allies would have you believe. But reports of the demise of this fundamental liberty are greatly exaggerated.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishopshas designated June 21 to July 4 as a "fortnight for freedom." During those two weeks, the church will trumpet its already well-known opposition to an Obama administration regulation that private health insurance plans include contraception services. The rule applies not to churches but to colleges, hospitals and charities that serve and employ non-Catholics. Even so, the bishops insist that it undermines their church's religious mission to serve the larger community without compromising its beliefs.

The bishops are free to argue, including in court, that the contraceptive mandate is a violation of the church's rights under the 1st Amendment and a 1993 federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (This page disagrees.) But some of the church's rhetoric has been shrill and simplistic. One bishop compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin, who, "at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and healthcare."

Equally excessive was the church's response to the rejection Tuesday by North Dakota voters of a proposed Religious Freedom Amendment to the state Constitution. The measure would have allowed believers to disregard laws that offended their religious beliefs unless a "compelling government interest" were involved and the state used the least restrictive means possible to further that interest. It's true that the amendment was modeled on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President Clinton. It also was subjected to farfetched attacks, such as the argument that it would allow parents who beat their children to escape punishment because they were employing "biblical discipline."

more at link

[Lionessa]

1. The only freedom related to religion that provides a legitimate complaint

is the

freedom FROM religion.

[cbayer]

2. Disagree (and so did the founding fathers)

[Lionessa]

4. What they may have preferred is not what is currently going on.

Those that do not want religion in their lives, in their gov'ts, courthouses, jails, schools, or politics are not seemingly having the right to a life without religious dogma being shoved down our throats.


For example, try being an atheist in court for a divorce, and when the judge asks you to take the oath, you tell him you want the non-religious oath, while your soon to be ex doesn't in a state like Idaho. Yeah, good way to assure the judge will be rudely interrupting everything you say while listening with baited breath to the lies of the ex. Perhaps just being the woman, not being atheist was the problem, but even that is well embedded in religions of most types.

Anyway, don't tell this atheist that I have freedom from religion, it simply ain't true.

[cbayer]

5. I made no claim that you are free from religion,

just the claim that freedom of religion and from religion are both protected, imo (though not always enforced).

[Lionessa]

7. You're making no sense.

Of course, the constitution so suggests, but the OP you provide is about the reality of those freedoms. It attempts to put to rest the idea that religions are somehow in the line of fire regardless of constitutionality. I suggest that the article is correct and that the only reality that merits such a claim is the freedom from religion, which as every atheist knows is still a huge issue.

[cbayer]

8. Making no sense? Or just not being clear?

The article maintains that the Bishops claims of infringement on their religious freedoms are bogus. No where do I nor the author claim that freedom from religion is not a problem.

[daaron]

3. We're all screwed.

Half the population takes the Bishops argument seriously. We're all just so screwed. America is fucked. We're fucked. Watch Romney get elected, that's how profoundly obtuse Americans have become.

We're fucked.

[cbayer]

6. I don't agree that half the population take the bishops argument seriously.

I also disagree that we are fucked and that Romney will get elected.

But that's just me. I don't really get into the FUD stuff.

[longship]

9. This is all fine and good, but then explain the "Christian Country" rhetoric

It is an inescapable conclusion that the interpretation of the First Amendment that many in this country prefer is that there is religious freedom for only those who believe in God. From their rhetoric, one could even make a credible claim that it is freedom only for the Jewish and Christian God.

One could claim that I am overreacting to an extremist minority, and indeed I very well may be. However, the danger of letting people espousing these views in control of the three branches of government should be apparent to anybody who listens to what some of these people are saying. As a professed atheist I am certainly listening.

But religious people who might discount these dangers are missing the point. The answer is to consider that this is not a null sum game. If Republicans gain control and I am wrong, we may have a fierce fight on our hands but in the future we may make amends. However, if I am correct many freedoms that we have all taken for granted may be lost for a very long time and there may no longer be paths to rectify the situation.

It may only take one or two more SCOTUS Justices like Antonin Scalia to complete the transformation.

All Democrats, whether they are religious or not, need to see the imbalance in the situation. We all need to fight this with a united front.

The Christian Country meme has to be swatted like an annoying fly.

Thanks for reading my rant.

[cbayer]

10. I agree that this is dangerous territory and that much damage has already been done.

There are examples of exactly what you say, but they are very difficult to justify, imo. Freedom of religion to me also means freedom not to be religious.