Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So would you consider restaurants that refuse to serve people that are on your phones persecutors of your religious freedoms?

 skyth wrote:

Of course, I'm sure you would never think to question a Christian priest about why they are using a microphone as part of a sermon when those weren't around in Jesus's day...

Show me the Christian priest who claimed that the microphone held "religious significance" to him.

So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?

 Peregrine wrote:
So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?

This... seems like a good time to get back to work.

My assertion that there is no Christian priest who believes his microphone to be a item of religious significance still stands, but I have no dog in this fight.

 Peregrine wrote:
So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?

Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?

Also it has nothing to do with the law.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?

I have a long history of asserting that religious beliefs are ridiculous nonsense, and I stand by that history. That's entirely separate from the question of what religious beliefs are legitimate in a legal sense. My personal dislike of religion and desire to see it disappear is not relevant to whether or not a given belief is (or should be) given a particular protection in court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Also it has nothing to do with the law.

It has a lot to do with the law because a key element of it is whether or not something is a "substantial burden". How do you decide if something is a substantial burden or not? For example, is the court allowed to decide that "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to this sinful government" isn't really a sincere belief and therefore being forced to pay taxes isn't a substantial burden on religious freedom?

And it certainly has a lot to do with the previous few posts, which seem to be heading in the direction of a debate over whether a particular religious belief (starting with the "playing games has religious significance for me" post).

Legitimacy and sincerity are not synonymous in everyday speech much less as legal terms. The Establishment Clause precludes American courts from considering the legitimacy of a religious belief. Fortunately, whether a person sincerely holds a religious belief or whether law imposes a substantial burden on religious liberty have nothing to do with any determination of legitimacy, whatever that might mean.

 Manchu wrote:
Legitimacy and sincerity are not synonymous in everyday speech much less as legal terms.

And I'm not talking about it just in the context of this particular case so the exact terms are not necessarily accurate. Remember, this is a response to the previous discussion here:

Other people: "belief X is/isn't legitimate".
Me: "define legitimate".

Fortunately, whether a person sincerely holds a religious belief or whether law imposes a substantial burden on religious liberty have nothing to do with any determination of legitimacy, whatever that might mean.

Except that's exactly the argument that was made previous in this thread: "refusing service to gay people isn't something your religion requires, so it isn't a substantial burden". The whole premise of that argument is that there is some kind of test for whether or not a religious belief is "legitimate" enough to be protected.

 Peregrine wrote:
Other people: "belief X is/isn't legitimate".
Me: "define legitimate".

In that matter, the wisdom of American jurisprudence ought to be applied.

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole premise of that argument is that there is some kind of test for whether or not a religious belief is "legitimate" enough to be protected.

As I explained, that is legally incorrect. The legitimacy of the religious belief is immaterial because it is beyond the capacity of the courts to consider.

 Manchu wrote:
As I explained, that is legally incorrect. The legitimacy of the religious belief is immaterial because it is beyond the capacity of the courts to consider.

And it being legally incorrect in your opinion doesn't stop people from making the argument in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?

 Peregrine wrote:
in your opinion

lol no

 Peregrine wrote:
doesn't stop people from making the argument in this thread

Well of course not. How insane would I have to be to make it my goal to stop people from being ignorant on the internet? If someone posts about finding spiritual insight in playing video games in homage to ancient Greek gods, so be it. If someone else posts to scoff at that, that's the way things go. And if someone else makes a post asserting said exchange has any relevance to the law ... well, here we are. The best I can do is inform you that (1) no it doesn't and (2) why. But will you go on as if it's not the case? That ball is out of my court.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?

I have a long history of asserting that religious beliefs are ridiculous nonsense, and I stand by that history. That's entirely separate from the question of what religious beliefs are legitimate in a legal sense. My personal dislike of religion and desire to see it disappear is not relevant to whether or not a given belief is (or should be) given a particular protection in court.


.

Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, if the courts can't consider the legitimacy of a belief then how exactly do they determine whether or not something is a substantial burden? If someone says in court "this is a substantial burden and no other solution is acceptable because god said so" how can the court rule that it isn't a substantial burden?

"No other solution is acceptable because God said so" is not a legal argument and could not be validly considered by any American court.

I think the easiest way forward here is for you to explain to me why you think it is necessary to determine whether a belief is legitimate before you can determine whether someone's religious liberty is burdened by some law.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.

Also incorrect. Again, the legitimacy of a religious belief cannot be at issue thanks to the First Amendment.

 Manchu wrote:
I think the easiest way forward here is for you to explain to me why you think it is necessary to determine whether a belief is legitimate before you can determine whether someone's religious liberty is burdened by some law.

How else do you separate out "this is honestly a burden on my ability to follow my religion" from "I'm just using religion as an excuse"? For example, the rich guy who says "god told me not to pay taxes" is pretty obviously just trying to cheat the IRS and forcing him to pay taxes wouldn't be any meaningful burden on his ability to follow his religion. Why? Because nobody believes that "god told me not to pay taxes" is a legitimate belief. But if the court can't say "we know you don't actually believe that" then how do you argue that being forced to pay taxes isn't a substantial burden?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.

And that's the problem: there's no objective standard, and in the real world we know what that really means is that beliefs that align with mainstream religion (especially mainstream Christianity) will get favorable treatment while minority beliefs are more likely to be rejected.

 Peregrine wrote:
en?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Like anything else then, the religious belief is legitimate in a legal sense if you can convince a jury/judge it is legitimate - just like any other thing.

And that's the problem: there's no objective standard, and in the real world we know what that really means is that beliefs that align with mainstream religion (especially mainstream Christianity) will get favorable treatment while minority beliefs are more likely to be rejected.

But isn't anything in American jurisprudence that is in question solely dependent on what you can convince the judge/jury of? I mean, I made a throw away statement and you jumped on it because you have a bone to pick with religion.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
But isn't anything in American jurisprudence that is in question solely dependent on what you can convince the judge/jury of?

Sure, but there's a big difference between convincing a judge/jury that enough evidence exists to prove a factual argument and having to argue subjective opinions about what a "substantial burden" is.

I mean, I made a throw away statement and you jumped on it because you have a bone to pick with religion.

This is pretty funny coming from someone who jumped onto my random "could you guys clarify what you're talking about before continuing this argument" post because you have a bone to pick with my dislike of religion.

 Peregrine wrote:
How else do you separate out "this is honestly a burden on my ability to follow my religion" from "I'm just using religion as an excuse"?

That is a question of sincerity rather than legitimacy. But the tension remains. And TBH a court can never know if any given individual is being sincere or insincere as to their religious beliefs -- considering this is ultimately a matter of conscience. A court can only decide if the evidence shows that the belief is sincerely held or that the belief is a sham.

But here's the brilliant part: it is not the only relevant factor in the legal analysis. Even if the evidence shows that the belief is sincerely held, the court still must find that there is no less intrusive means than the law or regulation in question for the government to pursue its compelling interest.

So as to your example of the man who believes paying taxes is sinful, it effectively does not matter whether that belief is a sham or sincerely held. Assuming the court finds that the belief is sincerely held, there is certainly no question that being taxed places a substantial burden on the belief. But the government indisputably has a compelling interest in obtaining funding and there is no less intrusive way to accomplish this than assessing and collecting taxes. Therefore, collecting taxes does not unconstitutionally violate the man's right to religious liberty.

It is crucial to remeber that our legal rights are not absolute. With that in mind, it easy to see how so many of the outrageous hypotheticals we chew over are beyond irrelevant.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
But isn't anything in American jurisprudence that is in question solely dependent on what you can convince the judge/jury of?

Sure, but there's a big difference between convincing a judge/jury that enough evidence exists to prove a factual argument and having to argue subjective opinions about what a "substantial burden" is.

I mean, I made a throw away statement and you jumped on it because you have a bone to pick with religion.

This is pretty funny coming from someone who jumped onto my random "could you guys clarify what you're talking about before continuing this argument" post because you have a bone to pick with my dislike of religion.

You know what, you're right. That was a personal attack and I should not have made it. I apologize.

 Manchu wrote:
Assuming the court finds that the belief is sincerely held...

Does the belief have to be religious?

In order to implicate religious liberty, yes. But there is case law regarding beliefs that while not explicitly religious were deemed by courts to be analogous to religious beliefs (e.g., humanist values).

 Manchu wrote:
In order to implicate religious liberty, yes. But there is case law regarding beliefs that while not explicitly religious were deemed by courts to be analogous to religious beliefs (e.g., humanist values).

What are those decisions?

I was thinking specifically of United States v. Seeger, which resolved a few cases -- including that of Forest Britt Peter, who claimed to be an conscientious objector to the draft but at the same time expressed skepticism in the existence of God as traditionally conceived of by the Judeo-Christian tradition. The relevant draft law concerning conscientious objection referred to beliefs "in relation to a Supreme Being." The Court summarized Peter's argument thus: "his opposition to war derives from his acceptance of the existence of a universal power beyond that of man, and that this acceptance, in fact, constitutes belief in a Supreme Being." The decision quotes Peter explaining that his beliefs arose from "our democratic American culture, with its values derived from the western religious and philosophical tradition" and furthermore "you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. These just do not happen to be the words I use."

This is one reason I posted about my personal beliefs. They are sincere but whethet they are legitimate has been questioned. Mine is a minority religion and is partially based on a personal revelation.

However a Christian whi has a religpus problem with gay marriage wouldn't have the legitimacy of the claims questioned even though gay marriage is mentioned 0 times in the Bible.

Laws like this do nothing to protect my religous freedom.

I haven't read all 45 pages of this, just the first ten and the last five, but did it get confirmed that there was a requirement for businesses using this law to put up a sign acknowledging that fact?

Because that seems like a great solution to me. If I lived there, I could make a point of avoiding businesses who practiced discrimination that I disagree with. Let them lose money.

On the legitimacy thing, pretty snobbish from some of the Christians here about Skyth's beliefs.

 Da Boss wrote:
I haven't read all 45 pages of this, just the first ten and the last five, but did it get confirmed that there was a requirement for businesses using this law to put up a sign acknowledging that fact?

If you are referring to the Indiana law, it was swiftly amended in response to public outcry to explicitly state that it cannot be used by a business as a legal defense for discriminatory actions on the basis of many categories , including sexual orientation and sexual identity.

In effect, Indiana has now become one of the most progressive and inclusive states in the Union when it comes to anti-discrimination.

I'm not sure what the law is meant to do anymore, or if any suc signs would be necessary any longer.

Oops, okay, ignore me then.

One of the versions in Oklahoma was amended to require public signage (both in store and on websites) if a business plans on refusing to participate in weddings due to religious reasons:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20FLOOR%20AMENDMENTS/House/HB1371%20FA1%20VIRGINEM-AM.PDF

Edit: none of the final bills have passed so far though.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So before we get into this argument could we stop and define precisely how one determines whether or not a religious belief is legitimate?

Since you have a long history of asserting that no religious beliefs have any legitimacy, why should I (or we for that matter) bother?

His point is rather on topic. How do we determine the legitimacy? Do you have to be born into the religion to be legit? Or at least practicing for over a few years? Do you have to go to church? Do you have to swear an oath to a judge, to god?? Show proof that you are a devout follower? Give examples of your faith? Do you have to believe in a divine being - does the flying spaghetti monster not count? Does it just have to be one of the mainstream religions? Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Shall we also include satanism? Maybe even Naturalism? Maybe even Secular Humanist? Do those not count cause they are not religions - but just ways of life?

These are basically all rhetorical statements. We all know what the answers to them are. Flying spaghetti monster is "illegitimate". Satanism is not protected because Satan is bad for Christians. Secularism and naturalism don't count because they aren't "sky god religions". Which brings us to a simple conclusion - this law was not created to protect peoples beliefs - it was created to "protect" the religious from the non-religious. This is explicitly illegal. As the state is not allowed to respect any establishment of religion - which also includes showing favoritism for religion over non religion. It's not worded exactly that way - but it leaves it open to a "subjective" opinion which quite literally could allow any number of discriminatory acts to occur. Furthermore the law is unnecessary - nothing prevents you from denying service to people for any number of reasons - you just can't do it out of prejudiced. A simple "I don't serve rude people" or whatever would suffice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
This is one reason I posted about my personal beliefs. They are sincere but whethet they are legitimate has been questioned. Mine is a minority religion and is partially based on a personal revelation.

However a Christian whi has a religpus problem with gay marriage wouldn't have the legitimacy of the claims questioned even though gay marriage is mentioned 0 times in the Bible.

Laws like this do nothing to protect my religous freedom.

Of course they don't protect your religious freedom - all they have to do is claim your "religion" is "illegitimate" and now you aren't protected by the law.

 skyth wrote:
This is one reason I posted about my personal beliefs. They are sincere but whethet they are legitimate has been questioned. Mine is a minority religion and is partially based on a personal revelation.

However a Christian whi has a religpus problem with gay marriage wouldn't have the legitimacy of the claims questioned even though gay marriage is mentioned 0 times in the Bible.

Laws like this do nothing to protect my religous freedom.

I don't think many in this thread realized that you were bring serious sbout that.

I guess we now know?