A welcome victory for First Amendment religious freedom. Even the liberals, who often let left-wing political correctness override the Constitution, and are not usually friends of religious freedom, went along. The link is to the full opinion. Just read the syllabus if you don't have time to read the whole thing. Thanks to John Hughes for first alerting me to this decision.
Showing posts with label freedom of religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of religion. Show all posts
Reflecting on the Fourth of July
As we celebrate the 4th of July, please take a moment to reflect on where we came from and where we are now. The two main complaints of the rebellious colonists were lack of representation in Parliament and deprivations of liberty. We now have representation, but I’m not so confident about our liberty. As noted before, constitutional liberty is under constant attack from both the political left and right. I’ve been taking lots of shots at the liberals, but they hold the White House and during Democratic dominance in Congress passed lots of constitutionally questionable legislation. Let me try to add some balance to this debate.
In the spirit of constitutional rights, I call upon my friends on the Right to end their opposition to lawful gay marriage. Like it or not, our courts or legislatures are eventually going to require recognition of it. Gays are human beings like everyone else. Even if you personally think they are sinful, the Constitution, not your religion, is the supreme law of the land. No one can require you to go to the ceremony or personally recognize the union. People have got to remember that they have no right to have their beliefs enacted into law when it conflicts with the Constitution. I respect everyone's freedom of religion, but, America is not a theocracy. Don't use your religious freedom as a weapon to destroy the freedom of others.
I call upon my friends on the Left to end their opposition to granting law-abiding, competent adult citizens their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Second Amendment rights are not absolute, but they deserve as much or more respect than anything else in the Bill or Rights. Guns do not cause crime. Gun control will not reduce crime as those intent on violent crime will always be able to obtain a gun on the black market. We cannot even attempt to strictly control guns without violating other rights in addition to the Second Amendment (e.g. due process, self-incrimination, search and seizure). Guns are used for lawful self-defense as much or more than for crime. People have a natural law right to defend themselves. Depriving people of guns for defensive purposes is a burden that falls most heavily on the poor and minorities who tend to live in high crime neighborhoods. The wealthy with their security guards and high-tech security systems in their gated communities and high-security high-rises see no need for defensive arms. Further, if we take away people’s Second Amendment rights, what kind of precedent does that set?
Let’s join together and start respecting everyone’s liberties—not just the liberties and people we personally like.
In the spirit of constitutional rights, I call upon my friends on the Right to end their opposition to lawful gay marriage. Like it or not, our courts or legislatures are eventually going to require recognition of it. Gays are human beings like everyone else. Even if you personally think they are sinful, the Constitution, not your religion, is the supreme law of the land. No one can require you to go to the ceremony or personally recognize the union. People have got to remember that they have no right to have their beliefs enacted into law when it conflicts with the Constitution. I respect everyone's freedom of religion, but, America is not a theocracy. Don't use your religious freedom as a weapon to destroy the freedom of others.
I call upon my friends on the Left to end their opposition to granting law-abiding, competent adult citizens their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Second Amendment rights are not absolute, but they deserve as much or more respect than anything else in the Bill or Rights. Guns do not cause crime. Gun control will not reduce crime as those intent on violent crime will always be able to obtain a gun on the black market. We cannot even attempt to strictly control guns without violating other rights in addition to the Second Amendment (e.g. due process, self-incrimination, search and seizure). Guns are used for lawful self-defense as much or more than for crime. People have a natural law right to defend themselves. Depriving people of guns for defensive purposes is a burden that falls most heavily on the poor and minorities who tend to live in high crime neighborhoods. The wealthy with their security guards and high-tech security systems in their gated communities and high-security high-rises see no need for defensive arms. Further, if we take away people’s Second Amendment rights, what kind of precedent does that set?
Let’s join together and start respecting everyone’s liberties—not just the liberties and people we personally like.
Male Circumcision Ban in San Francisco?
Those wackos in California are at it again. As near as I can determine, the proposal is backed by left-wingers who believe circumcision of MALES is a type of mutilation that parents have no right to inflict on children. IMHO, this proposal clearly violates First Amendment freedom of religion and the liberty to raise one's children without unjustifiable government intervention (e.g. Wisconsin v. Yoder (406 U.S. 205, 1972). It is very disturbing how much people want government to ignore the Bill of Rights.
Principles, results, dilemmas and the NYC Islamic Center
The current controversy over the Islamic Center in New York near 9-11 ground zero is a controversial topic. It highlights the tension between principles and results. I hope this brief discussion will help focus the issues.
The U.S. Constitution is full of principles, federalism, freedom of religion, due process, equal protection etc. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, these principles are paramount for public officials who take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” While the exact scope of these principles is subject to debate, there are some things about which there is little debate. For instance, under the First Amendment, government cannot discriminate for or against any particular religion as long as their pursuits are lawful. There is also a federal statute, a religious land-use act, which prevents religious discrimination by government with regard to the use of land.
Individuals also have principles. These are often religious or philosophical principles. If you are not a public official, you are not bound by the Constitution, except for a few provisions (e.g. 13th Amendment ban on slavery). However, once you become a public official, the Constitution binds you in your official acts. In your purely individual capacity, you do not have to comply with anything in the Bill of Rights. However, many people conclude that constitutional values are also good personal values. For instance, many libertarians support freedom of speech and religion as personal values.
The problem for both public officials and individuals occurs when the results of applying a relatively clear principle they publicly support leads to results that they do not like. We are not talking about catastrophic results, huge costs or anything like that. We are talking about results that one thinks are wrong, disrespectful or unpleasant, distasteful, in bad taste, etc. This tension between principles and results creates a dilemma. Some conceptualize this as an ethical dilemma. There are three usual reactions to the dilemma. (1) Bite the bullet, accept the primacy of the principle in spite of the results, and suffer the consequences (e.g. getting voted out of office, social isolations, etc.) (2) Ignore the principle and (a) publicly abandon the principle permanently or (b) ignore it in this case but continue to give it verbal support. (2) (B) could be considered hypocrisy. The third option is to devise a phony rationale for avoiding the principle in this particular case. This may protect against charges of hypocrisy. This is a favorite tactic of Supreme Court Justices. Everyone wants their favorite rights for themselves and those they support. Other rights and other people are devalued. For example, the Second Amendment is a right devalued by many on the left. Islam is a religion devalued by many people who want First Amendment protection for their faith and similar ones but not for unpopular religions. However, the main purposes of First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech and press are to protect unpopular views and religions.
The fundamental question is what is more important to you? (1) Principles or (2) results Again, we are not talking about catastrophic or financially costly results. First Amendment caselaw is full of cases where classless, tasteless, offensive, racist and sexist speech was deemed protected. For instance, assume some person is handing out pamphlets on a public street lawfully and peacefully urging people to vote for the Communist party. Most everyone ignores him and looks at him like he is some kind of wacko. Some people may be distasteful and offensive, but it is protected by the First Amendment. As a police officer or public official you have to let the person continue until there is a threat of some kind. As a private citizen you can urge him to quit, but you cannot threaten him with physical harm. That would be a crime.
If you care about intellectual issues, think about this. What are your principles? How strongly and sincerely do you believe in those principles? One of my all-time favorite quotes, attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoller is as follows LINK:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
The U.S. Constitution is full of principles, federalism, freedom of religion, due process, equal protection etc. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, these principles are paramount for public officials who take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” While the exact scope of these principles is subject to debate, there are some things about which there is little debate. For instance, under the First Amendment, government cannot discriminate for or against any particular religion as long as their pursuits are lawful. There is also a federal statute, a religious land-use act, which prevents religious discrimination by government with regard to the use of land.
Individuals also have principles. These are often religious or philosophical principles. If you are not a public official, you are not bound by the Constitution, except for a few provisions (e.g. 13th Amendment ban on slavery). However, once you become a public official, the Constitution binds you in your official acts. In your purely individual capacity, you do not have to comply with anything in the Bill of Rights. However, many people conclude that constitutional values are also good personal values. For instance, many libertarians support freedom of speech and religion as personal values.
The problem for both public officials and individuals occurs when the results of applying a relatively clear principle they publicly support leads to results that they do not like. We are not talking about catastrophic results, huge costs or anything like that. We are talking about results that one thinks are wrong, disrespectful or unpleasant, distasteful, in bad taste, etc. This tension between principles and results creates a dilemma. Some conceptualize this as an ethical dilemma. There are three usual reactions to the dilemma. (1) Bite the bullet, accept the primacy of the principle in spite of the results, and suffer the consequences (e.g. getting voted out of office, social isolations, etc.) (2) Ignore the principle and (a) publicly abandon the principle permanently or (b) ignore it in this case but continue to give it verbal support. (2) (B) could be considered hypocrisy. The third option is to devise a phony rationale for avoiding the principle in this particular case. This may protect against charges of hypocrisy. This is a favorite tactic of Supreme Court Justices. Everyone wants their favorite rights for themselves and those they support. Other rights and other people are devalued. For example, the Second Amendment is a right devalued by many on the left. Islam is a religion devalued by many people who want First Amendment protection for their faith and similar ones but not for unpopular religions. However, the main purposes of First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech and press are to protect unpopular views and religions.
The fundamental question is what is more important to you? (1) Principles or (2) results Again, we are not talking about catastrophic or financially costly results. First Amendment caselaw is full of cases where classless, tasteless, offensive, racist and sexist speech was deemed protected. For instance, assume some person is handing out pamphlets on a public street lawfully and peacefully urging people to vote for the Communist party. Most everyone ignores him and looks at him like he is some kind of wacko. Some people may be distasteful and offensive, but it is protected by the First Amendment. As a police officer or public official you have to let the person continue until there is a threat of some kind. As a private citizen you can urge him to quit, but you cannot threaten him with physical harm. That would be a crime.
If you care about intellectual issues, think about this. What are your principles? How strongly and sincerely do you believe in those principles? One of my all-time favorite quotes, attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoller is as follows LINK:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)