Religious Freedoms and Conflicts of Law

Hello Everyone, I decided to write this down in my journal because I'd like to have some of these written down so that I can refer to them at a later date. This has been on my mind for some time. It may be a little long, but bear with me please.

As every theocrat says: this country was built on Christian (or Judeo-Christian) principles, it's the cornerstone of our country. Actually, their very assertion is incorrect on its face. This country was founded on the belief that every person could be free to practice any religion or NO religion at all. William Penn said: Two things I cannot stand, blind obedience and those who would persecute me because they believe differently from me. The case in point has to be the Puritans who expelled people from MA--which used to stretch from ME to MD and broke up due to religion.MD and DE were Catholic states. However, PA inhabited by Quakers (who were labeled the 'godless liberals' of the day) and welcoming all religious faiths, never split because they welcomed EVERYONE.

The role of religion in America is deep-seated. Most probably don't know that the first or ONE of the first penitentiaries were built by Quakers to make sinners "penitent" and silence was golden. Unfortunately, most were driven to Insanity than penitence due to the nature of the facility. It was very quiet, guards wore socks on their feet to stifle sound and the only light in the room came from above "so the light of God can shine on them" Great symbolism, bad execution

So I guess when social upheaval in the 60's came, the Religious Right rose to get into politics and save the soul of the nation and whoever didn't want to follow them, they said: No matter, we'll change the laws so you have no choice but to do what we believe you should do. Thus, imposing theocratic rule on those who didn't share the same beliefs

Now, back to the "Christian nation" deal. Within the time from the founding of this country, laws whose only defense was religion sprang up and regulated everything from the purchase of alcohol to marital relations, adultery, sodomy (which was geared toward animals as well as children, not two adults). Also social movements devoted to change based in religious beliefs, SINCERELY held ones brought abolitionism, desegregation efforts, women's suffrage, reproductive freedoms, workers' rights, fair housing and employment to name a few, that may have started with someone saying: A just God can't tolerate injustice. However, those were people who didn't have Morals without reality, they had to tackle the issue, the roots and beliefs of men that allowed the injustice to occur. It had been stated to me that some abolitionists did view blacks as human but interracial dealings were frowned upon-that is a reality of the day--and ours. Regardless of whether or not abolitionists and great men like William Wilberforce thought blacks were human their crusade against slavery remains untarnished.

Today, we see marriage equality bringing out clergy on both sides.
One says: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

The other: My faith tradition is okay with same sex couples being married and we want to perform their weddings, our religious freedom is being spat upon.

Just because a person holds a particular view that marriage is between a man and a woman is unimportant. Telling me that because I want to marry a man, who is irreplaceable to me, it is not 'real' and that I should "draw up a will" that family can contest (NYS Court of Appeals had to rule that a marriage performed in Canada was valid according to NYS law) If they had been  a man and a woman, the lawsuit would've been dismissed as moot (also, I feel the lawsuit was to punish the survivor and be a mark that they didn't approve of their family member's husband) Thousands of dollars and numerous appeals later, he had been vindicated, but the fact that these were two men made it apparent that he and his partner's--HUSBAND'S relationship was second class. It is also highlighted with DOMA, the law that kick started states to adopt their own in 2004 (thanks to Ken Mehlman, former RNC chair) after the MA Supreme Judicial Court threw out their state DOMA with the Goodridge decision

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" I heard on a religious broadcast and for the purposes of this piece is very appropriate. Anti gay theocrats want every facet of life dictated not by the Constitution, which protects religious freedom but gay children, teens, adults AND seniors, it also protects women, and by that document that begins "We the People" it doesn't single out theocrats like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann as the only ones needing its protection--but the Bible. Which goes against the first amendment in a most grievous way

The last scuffle with the Obama Administration regarding healthcare all employers to offer birth control coverage and instead of the employer covering it, the insurance company would. The "Catholic voices" of the leadership and the anti-woman advocated have seized on this as part of a fictitious war against religion by saying that those opposed to birth control will be FORCED to cover it, selective revisionism (spinning) is the religious right's specialty. They edit the truth pieces of it to resemble an attack on their religious freedom. I personally would uphold this mandate because it doesn't erode the free practice of religious beliefs. To do otherwise I feel would establish religion above Constitutional scruitny. Engel v. Vitale 1962 threw out school prayer because it established religion in a public arena

There's also a case of a Julia Ward who didn't want to 'affirm' homosexuality as she felt opposed and because she wouldn't treat gays the same as straight people, she wasn't able to get her counseling degree. The Judge in the case said simply:  The university "had a right and duty to enforce compliance" with professional ethics rules barring counselors from being intolerant or engaging in discrimination, and no reasonable person could conclude that a counseling program's requirement that students comply with such rules "conveys a message endorsing or disapproving of religion," Judge Steeh wrote. So in other words, the Judge said it was her own fault. Her views didn't get her in trouble, she got all A's in her classes and didn't comply. Her actions was what burned her, not her beliefs, the same thing happened with Jennifer Keeton in GA as well. Both cases were tossed out

I refuse to believe or put peoples' religious beliefs above scrutiny in the eyes of the law. DOMA or mini-DOMAs (state level DOMAs), adoption bans that hurt gay people, unmarrieds, and blankets a broad group of people (many because of religious or semi religious beliefs) for the sake of moral disapproval (court term is animus) have no place in American law (The first word that came to mind was jurisprudence, it's the legal term for that) just like anti-miscegenation (anti race mixing laws) discriminatory laws will fall and no matter how sincere of a religious belief it is. All of the warnings about the death of the races came to naught. It also doesn't save a law from being deemed unconstitutional either. The hypocrisy of lawmakers who work with Alliance Defense Fund and then claim to love equality are being looked at more and more with stink eye. Americans have seen what happens when religion takes a front seat and human rights violations are the norm. I am an idealist, and I do believe that religious freedoms and gay rights can and will coexist. But in order for that to be that means that we have to smack down those who believe that they have a "right" to impose their morality on an entire populace who don't share their beliefs

As the populace expands and greater freedoms exerted, we know the Religious Right won't get off their high horse. So the people and the court must knock them down. People like this can't be bargained with and won't compromise. They must be smacked down, ignored, even blacked out in the media. However, sometimes it's best for us to know what they're up to so we can put pressure on them (i.e. Santorum and Dorothy Brown who told gay students they were hell bound) America  is growing more and more impatient with this kind of rhetoric

Hope you all have a great day and share this wherever you want. I hope it can be of some use to people who are wondering about this subject. Laters!

Keeton Case
http://ishouldbelaughing.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-judge-rejects-jennifer-keetons.html

Ward Case
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700219775/Christian-student-wins-appeal-in-discrimination-case-against-university.html

She has been able to present her case to a jury