Reply to post: Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

Re: I wonder how they're going to know?

@Dan (Paul)

Okay, three things.

One is the question of whether the country was, as you say, "officially founded" as a Christian nation. This assertion, essentially, relies on the proposition that when a small collection of Puritans landed (mostly) in New England, that that was the "official" founding of the country.

Your opinion on the matter seems to be clear, but I would point out that you also hold up the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. So, is the important part the Pilgrims and Puritans who arrived in the early 17th century or the wars of independence and creation of the "United States of America" in the late 18th century?

I think you might find that, while the Puritans (and Pilgrims before them) certainly established colonies, it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that they, in any sense, "officially founded" the country. You don't specifically claim they did, of course, but your assertion about it occurs in your post about the Puritans rather than the one that mentions the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Second, your statement that the Puritans left England to avoid persecution is not entirely accurate. Not entirely inaccurate, but missing some important subtleties that matter rather a lot. At the time of their migration, there had developed a measure of peace between the religious divisions in England and independent churches were already being established. There were also mainstream figures who were openly puritan. Which is not to say that there was not conflict, but that the conflict was not of the nature that some suggest.

Further, one important reason for their emigration was that they were dissatisfied with the reforms occurring in England, though the specifics are somewhat more complex given that there were different groups with different sets of beliefs and goals. But, essentially, the main reason for their emigration was not to escape 'torture' but to set up their own colonies with their own specific sets of beliefs, following from the Dutch.

Third, and this is the big one. The you do not have a right to practice your religion however you want. You have the right to believe what you want and, if you want to hold services in your front room dressed in turquoise shorts and wearing a dead fish on your head, then that is your right. BUT, that freedom only extends so far.

If part of your religious PRACTICE is to sacrifice children then, well, you don't get to do that, no matter how old your holy book or how well-established your religion. You don't get a free pass by indignantly shouting "you don't get to tell me how to practice my religion".

Now, you can't be told how you must practice your religion but the law tells you things that you can't do, regardless of whether a holy book or a preacher tells you to or not.

So, you can't be forced to go to a particular church and preachers and priests and rabbis and muftis can't be forced to wear certain official robes or speak in latin. Nor can you be forced to pray to the god Set, nor forced to have your children circumcised.

But, while you can't be forced to do something religious, you can be prevented from doing something religious - if it clashes with the existing laws. So, a woman can't be forced to wear a niqab or hijab when she goes out but she can be banned from walking around a shopping centre stark naked and no amount of appeal to religious freedom trumps the existing laws on public decency.

This is the whole debate over Sharia law in non-Islamic countries - you don't get to beat your wife for being unfaithful and you don't get to flog or hang or behead someone because they said mean things about a religious figure.

That's because beating, flogging, hanging and beheading people is against the law.

So, while you have absolute freedom to believe as you want, the freedom to excercise your those beliefs is limited in practice.

That limit is that you may not "excercise" your religion - i.e. perform (or refuse to perform) some action - where there is a compelling interest against that.

Any practice that has sufficient (compelling) reason to satisfy such criteria is likely already illegal or regulated. Discrimination against people on the basis of race (in the context of businesses offering services) is legislated against and, while sexuality and gender identity is not a protected class federally, many states have enacted such provisions, thus providing the same non-discrimination protection for (e.g.) homosexuals as apply to other groups.

Therefore, there are several main points around this issue.

The first is whether having one uniform set of laws applying to everyone regardless of religion (i.e. not legislating based on religion) is a compelling enough reason to restrict the ability of people to discriminate against people based on gender and sexuality.

I believe that one uniform set of laws that apply to ALL people, is a good thing and once you start - effectively - making or applying laws differently for different religious groups, why not allow Muslims to operate under Sharia law?

The second is whether there is even a good religious reason to claim that providing flowers for a gay wedding somehow infringes upon a religious conviction in the first place. I appreciate that some people certainly believe that homosexuality is wrong, and a 'sin', and that the Christian Bible has passages that decry it but I can't remember the part where it is specified that one must not provide flowers to homosexuals getting married.

Now, it's not for me to dictate what is and is not part of a person's religion but it would seem to me that if someone is claiming that providing flowers for a homosexual wedding is against their religion, then any test to determine whether the belief is "sincerely held" should probably ask our florist which dictum of their religion is being contravened by the action they are being asked to perform.

To me, that would be a logical question because the very purpose of that test is to ensure that the objection is actually a religious objection rather than a personal prejudice masquerading as religion.

The final point that is at issue is whether this should apply to businesses and, while it certainly does apply, I have yet to see one compelling argument that shows me why it should.

Just like free speech, freedom of religious belief and religious practice is not absolute.