freedom of religion

[Anonymous]

Just as we have pharmacists refusing to dispense plan B to rape victims citing their religious beliefs, England has had several cases recently of people who were fired for failing to do their jobs and who claim that their religious beliefs justify that refusal. Here is what the court said in upholding the dismissal of a person who had been hired as a relationship counsellor, and then said he could not help gay couples--

In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and [European Court of Human Rights] Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right and every other person's right to hold and express his or her beliefs, and so they should. By contrast, they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society. The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law, the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judea-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of law-makers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy, and the liturgy and practice of the established church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled; it imposes compulsory law not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since, in the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may, of course, be true, but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer who is alone bound by it; no one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.

We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/880.html

[Anonymous]

I totally disagree.

No wait, I agree!

Eh, I am not sure.

[Anonymous]

Religion just needs to go away. So medieval.

[Anonymous]

I feel like Moses, having seen the Lord's revelation. Who'da thunk we'd learn about the First Amendment from our former colonial masters. But they were the ones from whom we learned the whole idea of a charter limiting the power of governmnet and granting rights to the people.

Freedom to worship in your church and your home, and to express your beliefs. But no government protection for practicing your beliefs when they impose upon others. Simple!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Moses, having seen the Lord's revelation. Who'da thunk we'd learn about the First Amendment from our former colonial masters. But they were the ones from whom we learned the whole idea of a charter limiting the power of governmnet and granting rights to the people.

Freedom to worship in your church and your home, and to express your beliefs. But no government protection for practicing your beliefs when they impose upon others. Simple!

Yes. England learned this lesson very, very painfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Moses, having seen the Lord's revelation. Who'da thunk we'd learn about the First Amendment from our former colonial masters. But they were the ones from whom we learned the whole idea of a charter limiting the power of governmnet and granting rights to the people.

Freedom to worship in your church and your home, and to express your beliefs. But no government protection for practicing your beliefs when they impose upon others. Simple!

Yes. England learned this lesson very, very painfully.

Uh, I don't know the last time you ever read the Declaration of Independence. But of the 29 really specific complaints in the Declaration of Independence, that was not one of them.

Tea Partiers are the worst. They quack like ducks about liberty, but they don't know the most basic civics. No wonder Michele Bachmann tried to put together remedial courses for the freshman in Congress.

[Anonymous]

It is a Constitutionally protected right to be able to hold whatever belief system you choose. However, just because your right to practice whatever religion you choose is protected, does not mean that you can impose that religion on others who also have the same right. Someone who fails to perform their job as required due to religious beliefs is no longer qualified to hold that position. You can either choose to compromise your beliefs and do your job as required or you can choose another field where your beliefs will not interfere with the performance of your occupation.

Why would it be any more acceptable for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense legally prescribed medication for religious reasons than for a anti-gun pacifist to join the police force and refuse to wear and/or use a gun as required? How about a Mormon bartender to refuse to serve alcohol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Moses, having seen the Lord's revelation. Who'da thunk we'd learn about the First Amendment from our former colonial masters. But they were the ones from whom we learned the whole idea of a charter limiting the power of governmnet and granting rights to the people.

Freedom to worship in your church and your home, and to express your beliefs. But no government protection for practicing your beliefs when they impose upon others. Simple!

Yes. England learned this lesson very, very painfully.

Uh, I don't know the last time you ever read the Declaration of Independence. But of the 29 really specific complaints in the Declaration of Independence, that was not one of them.

I believe that the PP was referring to England's bloody 17th century civil war, not the American revolution. It's not always about America, and you might try being less smug.