From The Catholic Thing:
By G.K. Chesterton I have not the space, even if I had the knowledge, to describe the fundamental theories of Mormonism about the universe. But they are extraordinarily interesting; and a proper understanding of them would certainly enable us to see daylight through the more perplexing or menacing customs of this community; and therefore to judge how far polygamy was in their scheme a permanent and self-renewing principle or (as is quite probably) a personal and unscrupulous accident. The basic Mormon belief is one that comes out of the morning of the earth, from the most primitive and even infantile attitude. Their chief dogma is that God is material, not that He was materialized once, as all Christians believe; nor that He is materialized specially, as all Catholics believe; but that He was materially embodied from all time; that He has a local habitation as well as a name. Under the influence of this barbaric but violently vivid conception, these people crossed a great desert with their guns and oxen, patiently, persistently, and courageously, as if they were following a vast and visible giant who was striding across the plains. In other words this strange sect, by soaking itself solely in the Hebrew Scriptures, had really managed to reproduce the atmosphere of those Scriptures as they are felt by Hebrews rather than by Christians. A number of dull, earnest, ignorant, black-coated men with chimney-pot hats, chin beards or mutton-chop whiskers, managed to reproduce in their own souls the richness and the peril of an ancient Oriental experience. An interesting insight into LDS theology. I have long been struck by the dichotomy between the obvious decency and thoughtfulness of most Mormons I know, and the bizarreness of Mormon theology. Chesterton's assertion that Mormonism is a resurrection of the ancient Hebrew understanding of God rings true. Perhaps the Mormons' desert wandering rekindled a primitive relation to God in the human heart. This is how people with no acquaintance with the substantive philosophy or theology of the past two millennia understand God. The obvious instinct of primitive men is to anthromorphise God-- to make Him a fellow-wanderer in the desert. It is the basis for paganism. To make gods like us. The sublimity of Christianity-- the breathtaking truth-- is that God did become one of us, but remained God. He drew us to Him. He deigned to be One of us and suffered for us. He showed us the one divine trait not imagined in the Hebrew understanding of Him: courage. Christianity drew out the shred of truth in paganism-- that God walks with man-- and then demolished paganism. I have no patience for Mormon theology. It's a boys' theology, utterly lacking the sublimity of any real understanding of God. Chesterton provides a very satisfying hypothesis about its genesis. Yet I have a great deal of affection and respect for Mormons. We had Mormon neighbors years ago, and they were the most gracious friends we've had. I have over the years spent quite a bit of time in Salt Lake City (for scientific meetings), and I have always come away with great respect for Mormon people and culture and for their transparent decency. Even a primitive Christian heresy retains enough of Christ-- just a touch of the hem of His cloak-- to ennoble it. |
Resurrecting the atmosphere of the Hebrew scriptures?
ReplyDelete1) Gather a small group of like-minded people willing to follow a charismatic charlatan (and there's no denying that Smith was both);
2) Define a moral code more stringent than the general population;
3) Annoy the general population, then flee to the wilderness to escape persecution;
4) When encountering smaller groups of people who you consider enemies, murder them - men, women and children.
You're right - there are many similarities. The biggest and most educational similarity, I find, is the fact that a powerful, enduring religious culture can be built upon a pack of lies and nonsense. Mormonism gives us an excellent, recent, and well-documented example of how major religions form. When people ask "If Moses didn't talk to God, how could so many people believe it for so long? " , we can now point to Joseph Smith and his golden plates.
The mainstream Mormon culture is quite interesting and there are some very positive elements of it. But their "theology" is no more valid than that of Scientology or the Raelians. This in turn says volumes about all divinely revealed theologies.
Real, powerful religions can be and are built on human-fabricated gods and myths.
If you could get them into a room together, wouldn't it be interesting to do a psychological profile comparison of Moses, Jesus, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard?
One religion is wacky and therefore they all are? That certainly makes the whole job of separating the wheat from chaff easier. It's all chaff!
Delete@KT:
DeleteIt's good to see you're finally catching on.
K T Cat - In Mormonism we have such a great example of how a new religion forms, that Michael is even drawing parallels with Judaism.
DeleteJoseph Smith was a failed douser, who sold his service - the ability magically divine the location of buried treasure - to the credulous of the Burned-Over District during the flare up of religious fervor in the early 1800s. When one of his clients finally got fed up and called him out for being a fraud, his other clients all admitted he'd never actually found anything.
With the failure of that attempt to profit off the credulous, he hit upon another way - invent a religion. He made a thorough job of it - we now have a religion complete with messiahs, saints, a holy land, divine revelations and holy scripture. And we have millions of believers.
It's a perfect case study, and a model that tells us much about the other divinely revealed religions. The origin of your faith is beautifully reflected in the history of the Mormon church. And what's so ironic is that, on average, Mormons actively enjoy and practice the generous community and moral behavior that Christians can only hope for.
If you don't see the reflection of your faith in the LDS church, your eyes aren't open.
@RickK:
DeleteOf course I see a reflection of Catholicism in LDS. I see the transparent decency of the people, the flourishing of families, the respect for law, the acknowledgement and worship of God (however differently we understand Him), the love for Christ.
Now of course you mean that I should see "parallels" between the founding of LDS and Christianity. As Chesterton pointed out, there are some. I believe that Chesterton is right to assert that LDS is a throwback to a desert religion. My suspicion is that LDS will evolve to more traditional Christianity over generations. It is already doing so in some ways.
What is without parallel between traditional Christianity and all other worldviews is the profundity and power of the Christian understanding. LDS has none of this, except what it has borrowed.
By the way, would you acknowledge the atheist foundation of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. That relationship is explicit, and seamless.
You can hold up any successful young religion founded by charlatans as a mirror to Christians and they won't recognize themselves. They always fail the mirror-test of self-awareness. Or maybe it registers deep down a bit, but they will tell themselves that they are different. Their religion is the real thing - yes sirree.
Delete"What is without parallel between traditional Christianity and all other worldviews is the profundity and power of the Christian understanding. LDS has none of this, except what it has borrowed."
DeleteLook at Egnor, demonstrating the true "humility" one would expect of a Christian. "Mormonism's good points are only those that are borrowed from my religion." A truly amazing display of hubris coupled with an insult dressed up as a backhanded compliment.
Christianity, unlike other religions, believes there is only one single Truth. Being a Christian means you can have a relationship with that Truth, which usually implies a path of self-denial. If I say my religion is true, I don't mean I 'possess' the truth, but rather that God is right and I am wrong.
DeleteMany people are too 'humble' to even conceive that there may be one single truth. But this is not humility, this is just renouncing to your ability to think and come to conclusions.
Saying 'my religion is true' makes as much sense as saying 'my sun is shining'. No one can possess the sun. There is only one and it shines as much for everybody.
You'll probably be baptized Mormon after your death when one of your descendants converts, so you'll be one of the cult anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe contrast between Mormon theology and Mormon behavior is amazing to me, too. I suspect that most of them just close their eyes to the obvious contradictions in the Book of Mormon and head out to the church picnic to hang out with their friends.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Mormons on matters of theology but I've never met a Mormon who wasn't a squeeky clean nice guy. There are a few Jack Mormons out there--the ones who like their booze--but I don't really have a problem with them either. If Jesus were opposed to alcohol he wouldn't have turned water into wine.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that people of faith have a lot more in common, a lot more to defend, than we have to divide us. It isn't the Mormons who are forcing Catholics to provide abortion pills to pregnant women. It's the hostile secularists, the ones who talk a lot about the "separation of church and state." That separation protects the government from its (believing) citizens, but it doesn't protect its citizens from the government.
TRISH
"It isn't the Mormons who are forcing Catholics to provide abortion pills to pregnant women."
ReplyDeleteSee Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey generally applicable laws. From the opinion: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The opinion was written by the hard core left winger Scalia.
And so the First Amendment is essentially meaningless. Your judge said so.
DeleteNow do you understand why I get upset when this separation is cited to protect little school girls from prayers on school walls? It doesn't protect us from the things it's supposed to protect us from.
If this is the same "Anonymous" from previous posts--Aaron, the supposed lawyer and supposed expert--I might remind you that you once spouted the well worn talking point that I should support the Cranston student because the "separation of church and state" protects my rights as well.
As you have brilliantly illustrated in high definition technicolor, it does not. The moment this "protection" might be used to protect my from the overreaching government, it suddenly goes away.
TRISH
"And so the First Amendment is essentially meaningless. Your judge said so."
DeleteYes, the judge who is cited as a bastion of "originalism" ruled that the free exercise clause doesn't allow people's religious beliefs to trump the generally applicable laws of the land.
And this actually has almost nothing to do with separation of church and state. It has to do with the limits of the free exercise clause. You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to engage in polygamy on religious grounds if polygamy is illegal. Or to use illegal drugs as part of your religious practices. Or any number of other limitations large and small: pacifist Quakers must pay taxes even though those taxes are used to support a military. Catholics must pay into Medicare even though that system pays for contraception. And employers must obey the laws concerning employment rules.
I should also point out in response to your claim that it "isn't the Mormons who are forcing Catholics to provide abortion pills to pregnant women" is factually incorrect. As governor of Massachusetts, Rommney ruled that Massachusetts law did exactly that. And required Catholic hospitals to provide those services.
Anonymous, you have demonstrated exactly why the separation of church and state has been used as a weapon, why its protections are not protections at all.
DeleteYou think you're quite cheeky quoting Scalia. You suffer from the delusion that I, like you, believe in the infallibility of judges. Scalia can be wrong. Even when he's right--which is most of the time--he isn't right because he's Scalia. He isn't right because of his position as a supreme court justice. He's right when he makes decisions consistent with the Constitution.
And guess what? Actually, the Constitution is very clear and it says the exact opposite of what you think it says.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
In other words, if a law conflicts with the free exercise of religion, it is the law, and not the free exercise that has to yield. That is what the Constitution says. If a judge ruled otherwise than the judge is wrong. How is this even debatable? If a judge ruled that the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery, actually required slavery, we would say that he decided in error.
It would be hard to call it free exercise of religion the way you portray it. I've heard this argument before. "Sure, we have free exercise of religion in this country, but you can't break the law!" What protection then does it afford? If all we have to do is to pass a law that prohibits your free exercise, then it means nothing.
Let's say Congress passed a law requiring all delis to sell ham. Jewish delis would be outraged. They would argue (correctly) that the law limits their free exercise of religion. But in arguing as much, they would be saying that their free exercise trumps the law. Under your argument, the law trumps their free exercise.
Saying that you can practice whichever way you want unless it's illegal is a sham. How about this--the Constitution guarantees that you can have sex with anyone you want, as long as it isn't illegal. (Actually, the Constitution is silent on sexual rights, unlike religious rights which you ignore.) You have an inalieable right to speak your mind in this country...unless it's illegal.
A right to do something (unless it's illegal) is no right at all. That means that all the government has to do is pass a law making it illegal and you can't do it any longer. That's a meaningless protection.
You have a right to free speech...unless it's illegal. And once I become president, I'm going to pass a law making it illegal to criticize President Trish. But that's not a threat to free speech, because you have the right to say anything you want...unless it's illegal. And criticizing President Trish is, as we have seen, is illegal. My law trumps your rights.
TRISH
TRISH
"You are not free to engage in polygamy on religious grounds if polygamy is illegal."
DeleteInterestingly, the homosexuals who want to redefine marriage quote the first amendment. "You can't force your religion on me!" Actually, the first amendment protects the rights of religious people to practice their religion, not non-religious people to practice their non-religion.
"Or to use illegal drugs as part of your religious practices." Wrong again. The Native American Church is allowed to use peyote in their religious rituals because it is part of their religion.
Think of the Jehova's Witnesses who refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Under your argument, they would have been forced to say the pledge of allegiance. After all, West Virginia law was clear. All students in public schools must say the pledge. The JW's wanted an exception to made on the grounds of religious freedom. They won. So you're wrong.
Similarly, JW's and Quakers may not be drafted. What they want is the same things the Catholics want-- an exception to made on the grounds of religious freedom. Under your logic, their opposition to the draft, which is a part of their religion, is not grounds to be exempted from their service. And they should be forced to fight. Right, constitutional lawyer?
TRISH
"I should also point out in response to your claim that it "isn't the Mormons who are forcing Catholics to provide abortion pills to pregnant women" is factually incorrect. As governor of Massachusetts, Rommney ruled that Massachusetts law did exactly that. And required Catholic hospitals to provide those services."
DeleteI live in Massachusetts. You don't know what you're talking about. Romney opposed that bill and was excoriated for it. Would you trust the Huffington Post as a source?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-contraception-veto-morning-after-pill_n_1194422.html
Romney vetoed the bill. The legislature passed it over his veto. He opposed it and did what he could do as governor to stop it. Liberals were all in a snit about it at the time, and now they're trying to rewrite history.
You're got to be one of the most uninformed people I've ever met.
TRISH
"In other words, if a law conflicts with the free exercise of religion, it is the law, and not the free exercise that has to yield. That is what the Constitution says. If a judge ruled otherwise than the judge is wrong. How is this even debatable?"
DeleteBecause laws of general applicability trump specific religious practices. This is not new. It is not novel. It is not some recent interpretation of the law or of the Constitution. Minority religious groups have been well aware of this fact for a long time: Mormons may not practice polygamy. Christian Scientists who deny their children medical treatment may be liable for child abuse. Muslims who want to kill apostates are not permitted to do so. Quakers must pay taxes to support the military. Catholics must pay into Medicare. Native Americans may not use illegal drugs as part of their rituals. The list of these sorts of limitations is long. The reason is that the law trumps your individual actions. As noted by Scalia, otherwise there is no law. Otherwise, every sect or individual believer becomes a law unto himself. It would be impossible to have a functioning legal system, or even a functioning government if the opposite were true.
"You have a right to free speech...unless it's illegal."
You are correct. You do not have an untrammeled free speech right. There are numerous limitations on your rights to free speech: as Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed, you are not permitted to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You may not engage in libel or slander unhindered. If you engage in commercial speech you will be limited in what you can say. And so on. All of the rights defined in the Constitution have limits to their ambit. Usually for very good reasons.
"Romney vetoed the bill. The legislature passed it over his veto. He opposed it and did what he could do as governor to stop it."
DeleteYes. And when it became law, he instructed Catholic hospitals that they had to obey that law and enforced it. Because he understood that this was what was required by our legal system, and that the right to free exercise didn't override the applicability of this law. Rommney understood the Constitution, even if you do not.
By the way, judges "rule", not governors.
DeleteThe only factually incorrect assertions here are yours.
TRISH
I'm afraid it is you who is sadly uninformed.
Delete"Wrong again. The Native American Church is allowed to use peyote in their religious rituals because it is part of their religion."
Native Americans are allowed to use peyote because a religious exemption was written into the law. However, as happened in the case I cited, without that exemption, the first amendment would not protect this practice against a law making peyote illegal.
"Think of the Jehova's Witnesses who refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Under your argument, they would have been forced to say the pledge of allegiance. After all, West Virginia law was clear. All students in public schools must say the pledge. The JW's wanted an exception to made on the grounds of religious freedom. They won. So you're wrong."
They won on freedom of speech grounds. Not freedom of religion grounds.
"Similarly, JW's and Quakers may not be drafted."
They can be drafted. There is an exemption written into the law allowing them to file for conscientious objector status. But if that exception did not exist, they could be drafted. During WWI, for example, such individuals were drafted anyway, and given noncombat roles if they served. Those who refused to be drafted were jailed.
"What they want is the same things the Catholics want-- an exception to made on the grounds of religious freedom."
And they could be given an exemption, but they don't have to be.
"Under your logic, their opposition to the draft, which is a part of their religion, is not grounds to be exempted from their service."
It isn't, and they could be. And in some conflicts, they have been. Learn your history.
"By the way, judges "rule", not governors."
DeleteOnce again, you are sadly misinformed. All executive branches engage in administrative deliberations and end up making rulings as to how they will enforce the laws.
TRISH wrote
DeleteIn other words, if a law conflicts with the free exercise of religion, it is the law, and not the free exercise that has to yield.
It doesn't get much dumber than that.
It so happens that I started a new religion last Thursday, having received Divine Revelation after a night on the town. I am now the Anti-Trish (peace be upon my name), official High Priest of the one and only true religion DeathToTrishOlogy. According to its single commandmend (the Holy Monolog), it is each member's holy duty to kill at least one person named Trish during each and every lunar cycle.
It's good to hear the law has to yield to my free exercise of religion.
"Perhaps the Mormons' desert wandering rekindled a primitive relation to God in the human heart. This is how people with no acquaintance with the substantive philosophy or theology of the past two millennia understand God."
ReplyDeleteHow curious that literary critic Harold Bloom, in contrast to Chesterson, views Mormonism as the natural extension of the Abrahamic vision of God, from the Hebrew existensial (God is), to the Christian personal (God is human), to the Mormon celestial (Humans are Gods). As such, Mormonism is less primitve, and a continuation of the progressive Gnostic tradition that had been supressed by the orthodox founders of the Church.
But hey, that's comparative religion for you. It doesn't offer explanatory power, just a framework for supporting one's own particular religious opinions.
L
Nothing new here. An older religion considers a new offshoot a barbaric heresy. Christians view John Smith a "charismatic charlatan." Jews see Christ as a false messiah. Ho hum.
DeleteWhen we explore the mythology of another culture it's called anthropology; when we explore the mythology of our own culture it's called blasphemy.
DeleteCan't remember who said it first. I'll take credit though if no one has.
L
Hey anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that Trish was correct when she said that you have a right to free speech unless it's illegal. She used the example of passing a law making it illegal to criticize President Trish. So that would be legit under your understanding of the Constitution, right?
Because you have a right to say whatever you want unless it's illegal. And if a president and Congress passed a law making it illegal to criticize them, that would void your rights on the matter. Since that right of free speech isn't a license to break the law, the law would stand and the rest of us would be gagged. After all, you still have the right to say anything you want. As long as it's not illegal.
And what did you think of the deli example? I notice you didn't say a word about that. I think it's a fine analogy.
Another thing. I've noticed that you always cite case law. Why not cite the Constitution instead? It seems to be me that good case law would have its basis and justification in the Constitution and you would be able to refer us to that as well.
So far, she's winning this one.
The Torch
"You mentioned that Trish was correct when she said that you have a right to free speech unless it's illegal."
DeleteYep. You don't have a boundless right to free speech. I know this is surprising to many, but that's the way it is.
"Because you have a right to say whatever you want unless it's illegal. And if a president and Congress passed a law making it illegal to criticize them, that would void your rights on the matter. Since that right of free speech isn't a license to break the law, the law would stand and the rest of us would be gagged. After all, you still have the right to say anything you want. As long as it's not illegal."
The Alien and Sedition Acts did almost exactly this. Would that sort of exercise of power hold up today? Who knows. We've accepted far more far reaching limitations on the rights of free speech in the last decade or two.
"And what did you think of the deli example? I notice you didn't say a word about that. I think it's a fine analogy."
Sure. If there was a law of general applicability that said all delis must offer ham without an exception written into it, it would constrain how they operated their business.
"Another thing. I've noticed that you always cite case law. Why not cite the Constitution instead?"
Because you can't understand the Constitution without the case law. The Constitution says you have a right to free exercise. The case law tells you how that right can be applied.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNice post. It's good thing we have a constitutional lawyer around to demonstrate that the Constitution actually means it's exact opposite. "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" actually means that they can make any law they damned well please prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Because once it's been outlawed, then the free exercise no longer applies.
I want to tell you a story, Anonymous. The first year I voted was 1972. I pulled that lever for McGovern because he promised that his first act as president would be to get the troops the hell out of Vietnam. I was eighteen years old.
Now, if the election had been any sooner, I wouldn't have been allowed to vote. The only reason I was allowed to vote was because the Constitution--the supreme law of the land--was amended the previous year to extend suffrage to eighteen year olds. Thank you, 26th Amendment. There was nothing stopping states from extending suffrage to eighteen year olds before the amendment, but after the amendment, it was required that all states do so. And so I got to vote.
Now, if I understand your deceptive argument correctly, you're saying that people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there's a law against the free exercise. And people have the right to free speech, unless there's a law against that speech.
Interesting. So am I to understand that eighteen year old have the right to vote, unless there's a law against eighteen year old voting? Because that would make the 26th Amendment essentially meaningless. My state, which didn't allow eighteen year old to vote prior to 1971, was under no obligation to allow them to vote AFTER 1971 either. Because, according to you, laws trumps the rights enumerated in the Constitution, not vice versa. As bad as that may sound when applied to the 26th, it'
s absolutely terrifying when applied to the 1st. It offers no protection whatsoever if a government can violate my rights just by passing a law. That's the whole point of the Amendment--laws the violate it are null and void!
That's why case law should always be measured against the standard of the Constitution. In your world, the Constitution is measured against the standard of case law. We've gotten ourselves in a lot of trouble doing things your way.
J.Q.
"Now, if I understand your deceptive argument correctly, you're saying that people have the right to free exercise of religion, unless there's a law against the free exercise. And people have the right to free speech, unless there's a law against that speech."
DeleteIt is hard to call an argument based upon public documents "deceptive". These opinions aren't secret. You can go look them up yourself.
The argument is that your right of free speech is not unlimited. Your right to free exercise is also not unlimited. As I pointed out, there are a number of ways in which your right to free speech is limited. For example, if you were to libel your neighbor, you could be subject to legal sanction as a result. Your right to free speech is limited to not encompass the right to also commit libel.
Similarly, the right to free exercise is not unlimited, and one way in which it is curtailed (and which it has always been interpreted to be curtailed) is if there is a law of general applicability, it is not enough to have a religious objection to the constraints of law to be allowed to refuse to obey it. As a matter of policy, we have often written religious exceptions into laws, but the free exercise clause does not mandate that the government do so.
Quakers can register as conscientious objectors and avoid being drafted into the military. However this was not always the case. During World War I, when objectors refused to be drafted, they were jailed. The free exercise clause did not prevent this. We now have an exemption allowing for religious peyote use in Native American religious rituals, but in 1990 we did not, and the free exercise clause was not a refuge for those who were penalized for doing so by the laws against drug use. There are limits to your free exercise, just like there are limits to every other right you have.
In Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death. A Muslim who kills an apostate is fulfilling a religious obligation. Would you argue that his right to kill an apostate overrides the laws against murder?
"That's why case law should always be measured against the standard of the Constitution."
It is. The Constitution says you have a right to free exercise. The case law tells you the parameters of that right and how that right is applied.
"So am I to understand that eighteen year old have the right to vote, unless there's a law against eighteen year old voting? Because that would make the 26th Amendment essentially meaningless. My state, which didn't allow eighteen year old to vote prior to 1971, was under no obligation to allow them to vote AFTER 1971 either."
DeleteSuppose your state had a law that disenfranchised convicted felons. It applies to all voters of all ages. Does the 26th Amendment override that law? Suppose your state had a law that disenfranchised mentally disabled people. Does the 26th Amendment override that?
Your rights are not unlimited.
Let's look at the text, shall we?
Delete"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State ON ACCOUNT OF AGE."
It states very clearly that an eighteen year old's right to vote can be denied or abridged for other reasons besides age. But if age is the factor, then the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged.
So your idea about felons voting is really a non-issue. Felons who are denied to vote are denied because they are felons, not because of their age.
The point is that the Constitution trumps mere laws. To say that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech "as long as that speech isn't illegal" is both incorrect and inconsistent with the text of the Constitution. If that's the case, it offers no protection whatsoever.
You were asked if the President and Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticize them and your only response was to say that the Alien and Sedition Acts did basically that. I thought the same thing. But the Alien and Sedition Acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the point. I just wish you'd answer the question though. I'm sure our elected officials would love to be insulated from criticism. Could they simply pass a law tomorrow saying that it's illegal to pick on them? It seems to me that, under your logic, the answer would be yes. In America, this wonderful land of freedom, you can say anything you want, as long as it's not illegal. Once it's been made illegal, you can't say it any more.
Actually, the Constitution says the opposite of how you have formulated it--laws that violate free speech are null and void, just the same way that laws that would prevent eighteen year olds from voting ON ACCOUNT OF AGE are also void too.
J.Q.
"In Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death. A Muslim who kills an apostate is fulfilling a religious obligation. Would you argue that his right to kill an apostate overrides the laws against murder?"
DeleteI can't believe you're comparing the Catholic Church's right not to fund the murder of unborn children with Islamic honor killings. You're a tool. Not to be taken seriously.
J.Q.
"I can't believe you're comparing the Catholic Church's right not to fund the murder of unborn children with Islamic honor killings."
DeleteSo their right to free exercise doesn't extend to all the provisions of their religion, but yours does. That's a very interesting double standard you have there. Exactly how do you propose to decide whose religious customs get to override the law and whose do not?
As I pointed out before, the free exercise clause did not allow Quakers and other pacifists to avoid being subject to the draft. It didn't permit Native Americans to ignore the drug laws. It doesn't allow Catholics to avoid paying in to medicare. So it is more than Islamic honor killings that the free exercise clause does not permit.
So, why is your faith a special snowflake and everyone else has to follow the law?
"You were asked if the President and Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticize them and your only response was to say that the Alien and Sedition Acts did basically that. I thought the same thing. But the Alien and Sedition Acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
DeleteActually, they were never tested in court. Learn your history.
"I'm sure our elected officials would love to be insulated from criticism. Could they simply pass a law tomorrow saying that it's illegal to pick on them? It seems to me that, under your logic, the answer would be yes. In America, this wonderful land of freedom, you can say anything you want, as long as it's not illegal."
There are dozens of limitations on your free speech rights: the government can prohibit incitements to crime, threats, obscenity, and defamation. It can regulate commercial speech, the speech of public employees, and students. It can prohibit speech on national security grounds. And so on and so forth. As I have pointed out elsewhere, your right to free speech is not unlimited.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAbout Romeny. Governors can't overturn laws like judges can. His veto was overridden. What else was he supposed to do?
If that's your version of Mormons forcing people to provide abortion and contraception for their employees, that's more than a little weak.
Have you ever won a case? I'm just wondering. You aren't very persuasive, but I could see how you might be able to win over a halfwit using deception.
J.Q.
"About Romeny. Governors can't overturn laws like judges can. His veto was overridden. What else was he supposed to do?"
DeleteGovernors can choose how to apply the laws. That is what the executive branch does.
"Have you ever won a case? I'm just wondering."
Several.
"You aren't very persuasive, but I could see how you might be able to win over a halfwit using deception."
Unlike the crowd here, I usually deal with people who actually understand how the law works. There's a reason the arguments that are trotted out by people like Trish and Egnor consistently lose when used in Court. It isn't because of a conspiracy against religion. It is because they are arguments that run counter to the precedents established by our courts.
"Governors can choose how to apply the laws."
DeleteBut what you're saying is that Governors can choose WHETHER to apply laws. That's a different thing entirely.
Hey, when I get elected governor, I'm just going to ignore all of the laws I don't like. They'll still be on the books, I just won't enforce them. Unless it's against someone who pisses me off.
That's capricious and arbitrary justice. It reminds me of that awful AG Holder, telling us with a straight face that militant black panthers who intimidate voters with a billy club aren't really his problem. After all, he's the AG and he has "discretion" to enforce laws as he wishes.
Trying to blame the Massachusetts morning after bill on the guy who vetoed it is lame.
And I doubt you've won a case. What's your name, by the way? I'd like to know what kind of law you practice and where. I don't usually accept the credentials of Anonymous commenters at face value.
J.Q.
"Hey, when I get elected governor, I'm just going to ignore all of the laws I don't like. They'll still be on the books, I just won't enforce them. Unless it's against someone who pisses me off."
DeleteI suggest you look up executive discretion.
Did you know Mormons have their own underwear?
ReplyDeleteUm, you don't have your own underwear? Are you leasing little boys' underwear from your priest?
Deletetroy,
DeleteAs one great Canadian Prime Minister once said:
Foddle Doddle to you!
@anon:
ReplyDelete[Unlike the crowd here, I usually deal with people who actually understand how the law works. There's a reason the arguments that are trotted out by people like Trish and Egnor consistently lose when used in Court.]
Yea, the viewpoints Trish and I express are the viewpoints held by most Americans. You never been able to win you agenda in legislatures. That's why you always use unaccountable courts.
If only the American people were sovereign, instead of lawyers...
"Yea, the viewpoints Trish and I express are the viewpoints held by most Americans. You never been able to win you agenda in legislatures."
DeleteOh. Like the legislation that Trish is complaining about? You mean like that?
That legislation that Trish was complaining about was filled with the phrase, 'As the Secretary shall direct'.
DeleteWhat that means is that the bill doesn't lay out specifically what it will do. It simply grants broad powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make decisions at a later date.
Funny how they didn't tell anyone until it was passed that they would be forcing the Catholic Church to kill children in the womb. They kept mum about that part until after it was passed and then the Secretary "directed" it.
Must have been a popular provision, considered the fact that they sneaked it in under dark of night.
J.Q.
A law requiring contraceptive coverage has been on the books in Arizona for years. The Dignity Health group of three Catholic hospitals has provided such coverage since 1997. No one filed a free exercise claim about that law.
DeleteTwenty-seven other states have similar laws. In 2004, the California Supreme Court rejected a challenge to their version of this law brought by Catholic Charities concluding that the state can enact employment laws to protect workers, even if these laws conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Catholic Charities' appeal.
New York's highest court rejected a similar claim by Catholic Charities on grounds that the law didn't target religious beliefs and that a broad public interest is served by addressing gender disparities in medical costs. This is not a new question, and has been tested many times already. If a law is generally applicable, then the free exercise clause does not allow you to avoid its application.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If only the American people were sovereign, instead of lawyers..." - Dr Egnor
ReplyDeleteHear, hear!
Okay, I will play the oracle here, and attempt to provide a little forward analysis.
There are basically two roads open to the USA, as I see it. The nation can continue to allow itself to be divided on every issue and resort to courts and legal caveats to enforce the winning side's ideals. They can rule by law, like a nation of Ciceros. From the seemingly minor Prayer Banner stuff, to the more major issues regarding sanctity of life, property, and freedom of expression - they can decide by fiat.
If allowed to continue, the current elitism and minority rule will critically strengthen the already strong and growing separatist / secessionist movements as well as the 'grass roots' and 'tea party' groups.
Obviously the end result is eventual fragmentation of that nation, perhaps into a more EU like body (maybe 60 years?) or smaller republics and confederations.
While that maybe 'in the cards' for all nations eventually, it would be a VERY fast rise and fall for the USA.
Also the transition would be nightmarish for the world economy.
I am sure if this Dominion were to survive such a feud to our south (again) we would welcome some new neighbours and even maybe some new Provinces.... but good neighbours are very hard to find, and I like my current neighbours just fine. I would rather have them, than their swimming pool or garden, if you follow my analogy.
The other alternative is to resort to democratic principles and re-table the constitutional ideals that are already up for de facto debate/reinterp in the courts.
Let both sides 'come out' and declare their numbers and intentions. Let BOTH / ALL sides make their case and put it to the vote. Take it AWAY from judges and give it to the VOTERS.
This latter approach could save the current Republic without too much strife, and could possibly avoid yet another civil war.
My tuppence worth.
Anonymous lawyer dude...
ReplyDeleteWhat DOES the 1st Amendment protect us from? Anything? Anything at all?
J.Q.
"What DOES the 1st Amendment protect us from? Anything? Anything at all?"
Deletewell, perhaps if you actually read some of the case law that explains what it does and does not protect, you might know. Do you realize that most law schools have an entire course just on the first amendment?
Anonymous lawyer dude...
ReplyDeleteWas my state under an obligation to allow me, a non-felon, to vote after the 26th Amendment was passed? Or could they have ignored the Amendement because their state law said that the age of suffrage was 21?
If a court "interpreted" eighteen to mean twenty-one, would they be correct? Would you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend them, or would you stand up and say that they're wrong?
J.Q.
"If a court "interpreted" eighteen to mean twenty-one, would they be correct? Would you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend them, or would you stand up and say that they're wrong?"
DeleteI would read the case first and figure out why they ruled that way.
I despise Bill Maher, but he was correct when he noted that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a straight up conman and that Jesus (unlike Smith) did not run a Ponzi scheme.
ReplyDelete