The discussion of Elena Kagan’s memo about a RFRA case suggested to me that it would be good to explain some basic principles of American religious exemption law. What follows is my attempt at an objective explanation of the law; I don’t think any of this should be controversial as a statement of what the law actually is, though no doubt many people might have a different view of what the law ought to be.
Say that you feel a religious obligation to use a prohibited drug — hoasca (the drug at issue in the O Centro case from 2006), peyote, marijuana, or LSD. Or say that you’re a landlord who feels a religious obligation not to rent to unmarried couples (or same-sex couples), even though state law bars marital status discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination in housing. Or say that you feel a religious obligation to help someone commit suicide, in violation of state law — or a religious obligation not to testify against your parent, your child, or a coreligionist, even when you have a legal duty to do so. Should you be entitled to an exemption from the generally applicable law, because of your religious beliefs? Or should the government be free to apply the law to you just as it does to others?
Until 1963 (more or less), the rule was what I call the statutory exemption model — religious objectors got exemptions if and only if the statute provided for one (as, for instance, draft law historically had). Then in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court adopted the constitutional exemption model, under which sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.
Of course, a constitutional exemption model can never simply say “religious objectors get an exemption.” A wide range of generally applicable laws — murder law, theft law, rape law, and so on — must be applicable even to religious objectors. Even as to more controversial cases, such as bans on race discrimination in education, or generally applicable tax laws, the Court has found (even under the Sherbert regime) that religious objectors’ claims must yield.
To distinguish cases where religious objectors win from those in which they lose, the Sherbert-era Court used what it called “strict scrutiny” when the law imposed a “substantial burden” on people’s religious beliefs (e.g., when it banned behavior that the objectors saw as religiously compelled, or mandated behavior that the objectors saw as religiously prohibited): Religious objectors must prevail unless applying the law to them is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. But while the “strict scrutiny” test in race and free speech cases was generally seen as “strict in theory, fatal in fact” (Gerry Gunther’s phrase), almost always invalidating the government law, in religious freedom cases it was “strict in theory, feeble in fact” (Larry Sager & Chris Eisgruber’s phrase). The government usually won, and religious objectors won only rarely.
Then in 1990, the Court changed course: In Employment Division v. Smith, a 5-Justice majority returned to the statutory exemption regime, and rejected the constitutional exemption regime. So long as a law doesn’t discriminate against religious objectors, but generally applies to people regardless of their religiosity, it’s constitutionally valid. If religious objectors want an exemption, they need to go to the legislature. (This is an oversimplification, but let’s go with it for now.)
And then in 1993, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws (subject to strict scrutiny). In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court held that RFRA exceeded federal power when applied to state laws, but didn’t touch it as to federal law. Since 1997 (and in some measure before), about a dozen states enacted similar state-level RFRAs as to state law, and about a dozen more interpreted their state constitutions to follow the Sherbert model rather than the Smith model.
Therefore, the rule now is that there is a religious exemption regime as to federal statutes (under the federal RFRA), and as to state statutes in the about half the states that have state RFRAs or state constitutional exemption regimes. Religious objectors in those jurisdictions may demand exemptions from generally applicable laws that substantially burden the objectors’ practice, which the government must grant unless it can show that applying the laws is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
Finally, the following all constitute a substantial burden:
- The government’s compelling someone to do something that violates his religious beliefs, or prohibiting someone from doing something that is mandated by his religious beliefs.
- The government’s denying someone a tax exemption or unemployment compensation unless he does something that violates his religious beliefs, or refrains from something that is mandated by his religious beliefs.
- As to state and federal constitutional regimes, it’s not clear whether the above also applies when the objector’s conduct is merely motivated by his religious beliefs (e.g., the objector thinks it’s a religiously valuable thing for him to stay home on the Sabbath, rather than a religious commandment) and not actually mandated by those beliefs. The federal RFRA, many state RFRAs, and RLUIPA expressly apply to “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by … a system of religious belief.”
- The beliefs need not be longstanding, central to the claimant’s religious beliefs, internally consistent, consistent with any written scripture, or reasonable from the judge’s perspective. They need only be sincere.
But recall that a finding of substantial burden on sincere religious beliefs simply shifts the burden to the government (in those jurisdictions that have religious exemption regimes): The government may still justify the burden by showing that applying the law to the objectors is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
Clayton says:
Maybe someone here can answer a question I have had for a long long time. Basically, I’ve had it since I first read the constitution. So the establishment clause says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
People seem to take this to mean that the congress can’t set up a church, and thats what I thought. Then when I read it I was confused because it says “an establishment” and not “the establishment”. Its basically whether you think in this case “establishment” is a noun or a verb, to me it seems like a noun but obviously most others see it as a verb. Meaning, I see this phrase as meaning “congress shall make no law which acknowledges a church” which would mean there can be no law which acknowledges that churches exist at all. That would be separation.
So whats the history (if any, maybe I’m the only rube who ever thought this) behind this noun/verb issue (if its even an issue).
June 12, 2010, 7:20 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Suppose that a Muslim employer believes that it is a violation of his religion to condone the mixing of men and unrelated women in the same workplace. I am pretty confident that the courts would hold that Title VII would override this belief in this regard and require the non-discriminatory treatment of both sexes. But suppose that a religious school, relying on Scripture, believes that a man should be the head of a household and thus pays men more than women or the same work. I believe that the courts have struck down such arrangements. Is there any situation in which the non-discrimination requirements of Title VII would be subservient to the religious beliefs of an employer? The statute has a religious-accommodation provision for the benefit of an employee; can RFRA impute one for the employer?
June 12, 2010, 7:25 pmA Non-E Mous says:
While originally opposed to the Employment Div. decision and “generally applicable laws” standard, I found Prof. Volokh’s article on RFRA as a common law model enlightening enough that I have changed my views. Those interested in the subject should set aside the time to take a read through the paper: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/relfree.htm.
This advertisement was not approved by Eugene Volokh.
June 12, 2010, 7:26 pmEluchil says:
The original meaning was that Congress couldn’t mess with state established churches (or lack thereof) by mandating a single national church or other similar action. The idea of total separation of church ans state was certainly present at the time of the Founding but I don’t see it embodied in the First Amendment, particularly with regards to the several states to which it certainly didn’t apply in the 18th century.
June 12, 2010, 7:28 pmEugene Volokh says:
Folks: I hope one thing we can agree on is that “establishment” (prefixed by “an,” yet) is a noun and not a verb — whatever that noun might mean.
June 12, 2010, 7:42 pmGuy says:
I think what Clayton meant was whether “Establishment” means the act of establishing or whether it means something which has been established. People often use parts of speech incorrectly this way (sometimes people call gerunds verbs because they are derived from verbs, for example.)
June 12, 2010, 8:07 pmGuy says:
Thanks for the more in depth treatment and the link in the other thread, in retrospect my comments were not very well thought out; courts shouldn’t be second guessing her claim that it is her sincere religious belief that it is sinful to rent to sinners, even though I find that claim questionable.
June 12, 2010, 8:15 pmarch1 says:
Isn’t the federal RFRA a law respecting an establishment of religion?
June 12, 2010, 8:19 pmEugene Volokh says:
arch1: Cutter v. Wilkinson unanimously rejected that argument as to the similar RLUIPA statute; I don’t think RFRA would be treated any differently.
June 12, 2010, 8:25 pmTennLion says:
Eugene–nitpick: fifth paragraph (beginning To distinguish cases where religious objectors win), parenthetical remark ending mandated behavior that the objectors saw as religiously mandated. I believe you meant something along the lines of “objectors saw as religiously prohibited”….
[Fixed, thanks! -EV]
June 12, 2010, 8:58 pmJack Burton says:
Could somebody please explain just what “compelling government interest” allows a state to totally ban CCW in chuches.
June 12, 2010, 9:01 pmBiolawguy says:
What about the good ole’ “active-passive” distinction, so historically fundamental to anglo-american notions of individual liberty? This is indeed the difference between stealing vs. failing to be charitable, or the right to not be murdered vs. the lack-of-a-right to be saved. (Libertarian theory sometimes uses the language of “negative” vs. “positive” liberty/rights.)
In other words, shouldn’t there be a huge difference between restricting conduct that one’s religion might compel (which admittedly may not have as bright of a line) vs. compelling conduct that one’s religion prohibits? So if your religion instructs you to commit murder or something, then tough luck, because you cannot actively violate someone else’s rights. But we could still draw the bright line that nobody should ever be forced to actively participate in the violation of his religious tenets. (This would require accepting the libertarian premise that no true “right” can ever include an affirmative obligation by someone else…)
BTW, this rule would also help to advance libertarian principles more generally, as non-believers would surely (and understandably) complain that believers shouldn’t be the only ones free from such governmental intrusion…
June 12, 2010, 9:18 pmarch1 says:
Thanks Eugene. Yes, alas I see in Cutter lots of stuff like:
I didn’t realize that the prevailing interpretation of the Establishment Clause was so narrow (or for that mattter that the SC thinks it’s constitutional for a State to establish a religion).
June 12, 2010, 9:26 pmGuy says:
Keep in mind that you’re reading a concurrence by Justice Thomas, who is often Quixotic in his devotion to long rejected legal theories (see his unbroken dissents on the point that he doesn’t believe the Federal Arbitration Act applies to state court proceedings). It’s a fairly well accepted proposition that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause.
June 12, 2010, 10:14 pmCornellian says:
I didn’t realize that the prevailing interpretation of the Establishment Clause was so narrow (or for that mattter that the SC thinks it’s constitutional for a State to establish a religion).
Clarence Thomas is the only Justice who thinks a State is free to establish a state religion. He’d lose 8-1 if SCOTUS ever takes up the issue.
June 12, 2010, 10:19 pmarch1 says:
Thank you Guy and Cornellian. My spirits are somewhat buoyed:-)
June 12, 2010, 10:51 pmBarb says:
You’re over my head here in the comments –legalese –lawyers’ knowledge and all and my need to hurry–BUT I get the issue –it applies to the photographer fined for refusing to photograph a gay wedding on religious grounds –and to the landlord forced to rent to unmarried hetero couples or any gay couples.
In the name of religious freedom, we need exemptions from law that requires us to compromise our sincerely held religious or moral beliefs in order to do business or keep our job. However, religions should not be exempt from laws against polygamy, drug use, murders (honor killings, bombings and beheadings in the name of Allah, burning people at the stake, etc.) –and they should not be exempt from laws to punish and discourage racism.
Promoting the common welfare means there should be some limits on whacko “religions” which disregard the rights of others (like polygamy does to women and youngsters and taxpayers who have to help them with their too many kids. )
I know –someone will say I should therefore favor gay marriage as a civil right. I will simply repeat there is no such right to do wrong–and declare homosexuality to be equivalent to mental illness that leads to sexual addictions and perversions of various types –and point out–again–that all people have equal rights to seek someone of the opposite sex to marry, according to nature’s design.
I just talked to a not-Christian veteran of the Afghanistan war who happened to mention he had attended a gay pride parade once and was disgusted by it and wondered, “Is that what homosexuality is about??” Yes, that’s the angry, “in-your-face” frontline of the movement.
That fining of the photographer is really scary–because the homosexuals –like the ACLU –will “prowl around like a roaring lion seeking whom they can devour” –to make money by going to religious landlords, caterers, photographers and bakers whom they know will want to refuse to rent to or help with the wedding of a gay couple.
Medical people should help anyone regardless of their lifestyles –and secular gov’t employees should serve all (like teachers) –but certain businesses should not be forced to help people celebrate their perverse relationships –especially since it’s very rare that people can’t find businesses willing to serve them regardless of their lifestyles. There are more people who are neutral on the issue or gay-approving than there are religious people who don’t want to accommodate certain lifestyles for religious reasons.
It is likely that religious people will be targeted , solicited by the gay customers, in order for ACLU-type lawyers to make money. This is an attempt to change the culture by intimidation and financial exploitation.
June 12, 2010, 11:45 pmgeorge weiss says:
EV- what about some background on when presumptive (or explicit) religious exemption statutes or constitute “establishment” as they often have been held to-
June 12, 2010, 11:52 pmPurple Koolaid says:
Maybe some of you can help me w/ this one… I heard a radio interview w/ a chaplain talking about repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and his main beef w/ it was there was no protection for chaplains for free speech w/ regard to scriptures that forbid homosexuality (as well as other sexual sins). He was puzzled that there was no religious exemption written into the bill.
June 13, 2010, 12:18 amWould they need to write religious exemption into the repeal law?? Is he correct?
Barb says:
When chaplains cannot preach the Bible on sexual morality, there is no religious freedom or free speech for chaplains in the military. Here is my rationale on gays in the military–as published in our local paper:
June 13, 2010, 12:35 amJ.T. Wenting says:
Problem is, where do you draw the line?
Here gypsies (“roma”) claim that there is no such thing as private property, therefore if they steal something it’s according to their “culture” not theft at all.
A Sikh running along with a 15″ dagger can claim he’s required to do so by his religion (that dagger would be an illegal weapon if anyone else had it).
A Muslim killing a girl for having a relation with a non-Muslim can correctly claim that his religion requires him to do that, thus it is not murder at all but a lawful execution.
That same Muslim is he has sex with a 10 year old girl can correctly claim that his religion states clearly this is not rape nor child abuse, after all Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl and everything he does is sacred to Islam.
Etc. etc.
And how to prosecute such things, do you apply the law only if both victim and perp have the same religion?
If not, do you apply the victim’s religion to the case, or the perp’s? After all, if the perp was religiously motivated because of something the victim did out of his religious conviction, the victim is in the mind of the perp the actual criminal and requires punishment.
Once you start making exceptions, applying the law differently to different people depending on their religion or culture, you might as well not have a law at all.
June 13, 2010, 12:48 amKen Arromdee says:
Also, all people, both rich and poor, are forbidden to sleep under bridges.
June 13, 2010, 1:45 amCornellian says:
Gen. Peter Pace spoke for millions worldwide when he said homosexual acts are immoral like adultery.
If Gen. Pace thought his job was to speak for millions of people worldwide, he obviously didn’t understand his job well enough to deserve to keep it.
June 13, 2010, 1:49 amCornellian says:
We who object to co-ed rooms in colleges also object to out-of-closet gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders (the GLBTs) in barracks and military bathrooms. It is simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.
So that’s your only objection? No problem then, we’ll just pair each gay man with a lesbian. Problem solved, right?
June 13, 2010, 1:52 amCornellian says:
We who object to co-ed rooms in colleges also object to out-of-closet gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders (the GLBTs) in barracks and military bathrooms. It is simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.
Good point, we’re long overdue to rethink that silly innovation of allowing women to serve in the military.
June 13, 2010, 1:53 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Professor Volokh, you said “The beliefs need not be longstanding, central to the claimant’s religious beliefs, internally consistent, consistent with any written scripture, or reasonable from the judge’s perspective. They need only be sincere.”
Can those factors (longstanding, centrality to beliefs, internal consistency, written scripture, reasonableness) be considered by the judge/jury when deciding whether or not the religious belief is sincere?
June 13, 2010, 1:55 amBarb says:
Wenting –I just hate it when the law can’t be sensible.
Our law says sex with minors is wrong and illegal. It says everyone has a right to life so we can’t kill them (unless they are fetuses, said SCOTUS.) It says stealing is wrong, violating right to property (unless you are the federal gov’t.) The law forbids polygamy (but won’t enforce the law.)
Pardon what look like dangling prepositions –but The law should not say that we must bake cakes for, take pictures of, cater parties for, anyone who asks us. Even a doctor can dump a patient for various reasons. The law does not say we have to hire everyone who applies –nor admit them to all schools. It does say we cannot deny public accommodations and housing to people based on their race. But can we favor Presbyterians in a Presbyterian retirement home? Senior citizens in Seniors’ village instead of mothers with small children? Christians in a Christian school? Can we hire people from our church instead of the general public? Can we not refuse to rent to people whose co-habitation is sin according to our beliefs?
Can’t anyone write laws to be sensible –allowing freedom instead of the dictatorship by lawsuits of the disgruntled, angry minorities of all sorts?
June 13, 2010, 2:00 amCornellian says:
Can’t anyone write laws to be sensible –allowing freedom instead of the dictatorship by lawsuits of the disgruntled, angry minorities of all sorts?
Feel free to take a shot at it. I think you’ll find that the line-drawing involved isn’t nearly as easy as you might think.
June 13, 2010, 2:11 amBarb says:
They aren’t co-ed bunking yet, are they? They have long served previously as WACS and WAVES and WAFS but now they are trained and treated the same as men. I’ve sort of wondered if their presence in greater numbers in close proximity to the men wasn’t the reason we heard fewer complaints about going to Iraq, etc. Perhaps the social aspect is at times like college with young people being away from home and chaperones, attending classes and training and spending down time with lots of attractive people. No need to fraternize with the locals –or “camp followers” (which wouldn’t be in Muslim countries anyway, I assume) I hear the divorce rate is very high in the military. That’s not good for the nation or our families.
June 13, 2010, 2:12 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
“Can’t anyone write laws to be sensible –allowing freedom instead of the dictatorship by lawsuits of the disgruntled, angry minorities of all sorts?”
What you’re advocating is dictatorship of the wealthy majority, not freedom.
June 13, 2010, 2:21 amReaderY says:
Professor Volokh,
It’s interesting that you describe religious obligations as personal “feelings”, rather than as objective matters of status. We would not describe race or gender that way, although it could be done. The position that ones gender in particular reflects nothing more than how one mutably feels about oneself internally at the moment has gained considerable currency. How one characterizes the issue makes a huge difference in the outcome. If one regards people as potentially able to change gender as easily as clothes or hairstyle to the point that it cannot be regarded as a genuine characteristic of self, than their insistence on remaining a certain way can be thought of as not based on any firm foundation. So with religion.
June 13, 2010, 2:21 amBarb says:
Silly me–I thought you were serious when you referred to the silly innovation of allowing women in the military. I see from your other comments now that you were not. Yet, common sense says mothers of young children and babies have no business going. We used to avoid sending all of a family’s sons into the line of fire; now we send the mothers.
I’m sure Gen Pace’s intention was to speak truth on his own behalf. It was not his intention to speak for the rest of us –but he did it. And he surely shouldn’t lose his job for free speech in support of a military policy.
June 13, 2010, 2:26 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
I enjoy how your brain sees “woman” and sees it as identical to the word “mother”.
Don’t you think you’re becoming a little over-traditional?
No one is forcing women to join the military. Do you think women are emotionally incapable of making that choice for themselves?
June 13, 2010, 2:33 amCornellian says:
Yet, common sense says mothers of young children and babies have no business going.
Why not let those mothers make that decision for themselves? No one forces them to go.
June 13, 2010, 2:36 amCornellian says:
I’m sure Gen Pace’s intention was to speak truth on his own behalf.
He’s certainly free to speak on his own behalf as a private citizen. He’s not free to use his position as a government spokesperson to advance his personal views.
June 13, 2010, 2:37 amBarb says:
Nope. You’d have to have a lot of rooms for 2 instead of barracks –going to extra expense to keep the gays away from each other.(Or do they have rooms for 2 now in boot camp??) We also might have a lot of recruits eager to declare themselves gay to get a female roommate. And some homosexuals might find they weren’t after all–but curing homosexuality is not the role of the military.
With both women and gays in the military and treated exactly the same as straight men, thrust into rooming and bathing with all –the military will be more sex-charged and distracted with more morale problems and feuds and fights than ever before.
June 13, 2010, 2:37 amCornellian says:
Yet, common sense says mothers of young children and babies have no business going.
All the more reason to encourage lesbians to join the military right? They’re less likely to have children.
June 13, 2010, 2:39 amCornellian says:
With both women and gays in the military and treated exactly the same as straight men, thrust into rooming and bathing with all –the military will be more sex-charged and distracted with more morale problems and feuds and fights than ever before.
Gay men are already in the military and the military seems to manage.
June 13, 2010, 2:41 amBarb says:
Isn’t he entitled to a personal view and to speak it even though he’s an officer?? Are gov’t employees muzzled? Doesn’t everyone who has a job title inadvertently use the title to advance his personal views? “I’m Bob the taxi driver and here’s what I think about cab fares.” “I’m a general in the army and here’s what i think about homosexuals in the military.” We ought to want to KNOW what our military people think about military policy and morale. Who’s more qualified to an opinion about how military policy will affect the military?
June 13, 2010, 2:44 amCornellian says:
Isn’t he entitled to a personal view and to speak it even though he’s an officer?? Are gov’t employees muzzled?
Yes he’s entitled to a personal view and no he’s not entitled to speak it while he’s an officer and yes government employees are muzzled if they’re sufficiently high ranking.
Do you think the secretary of defense is free to speak out against the government’s defense policy and keep his job? Do you think the solicitor general is free to stand up at the supreme court and argue for his own personal view instead of the government’s view?
June 13, 2010, 2:57 amarch1 says:
This is slowly sinking in, but I still need some help.
How free of reason and evidence must the sincerely held belief be before it is deemed within scope of RFRA and thus deserving of priveleged treatment?
For example, a wholly rational and evidence-based belief or belief system couldn’t possibly cut it, because it couldn’t qualify as religious (right?).
But if I understand this, once one’s beliefs have met certain minimum standards of arationality and unsubstantiability, one is home free – there is no upper threshhold. If I sincerely believe that my neighbor’s right elbow is (and, what the heck, is not) the source of universal morality and has commanded me to violate law X, I can cause your tax dollars to be spent determining whether the government interest in preventing this is compelling, adjudicating ‘least restrictive means’, etc.
Is that about right?
June 13, 2010, 2:58 amBarb says:
Well, there are stories. And they’ve had to deal with kicking out over a thousand or so a year, haven’t they? or over some recent period of time.
I know a former navy SEAL who got involved –he thought he was straight and had a girlfriend until a charismatic guy put the sexual moves on him. He became so depressed over his moral lapse and what it said to him about his sexual identity that he killed himself. Of course, today we say if we just glorify swinging both ways, it won’t depress people. They will be happy bisexuals. Never mind the failure to be faithful in this case.
I have a male friend who was in the military and said an officer pursued him. That was years ago and he found it very uncomfortable and disturbing to have a predator officer after him. He doesn’t think they belong in the military whether they tell or not.
I know a young lady quite well who was pursued at college –and not tempted in the least –but found it upsetting to think people might think she was lesbian because this loud-mouthed pursuer was and she wanted to be kind to her, but not identified as her lesbian girlfriend.
We have enough trouble with opposite sex attractions, unrequited love, etc. we don’t need to have our own sex after us, and pining away for being rejected also.
Approval of homosexuality is not a positive trend. We’ll see it eventually. you would have thought AIDS would have been a deterrent –but quixotically, we embraced the lifestyle with its behaviors that brought AIDS to the US.
June 13, 2010, 2:59 amBarb says:
I think when you are part of an administration that holds certain views and is advocating certain policy, you don’t disagree if you want to keep your job.
In the case of General Pace, he was articulating the rationale behind the policy that was in place. And many of us agree with him –and the policy–do not ask do not tell –if you are gay and want to serve. Stay in the closet because we don’t want you pursuing anybody, flaming like the MASH character who wanted to be kicked out, publically smooching and holding hands with your boyfriend, getting crushes on people because it makes a raw, impressionable, insecure recruit wonder “what’s wrong with me that a gay guy is after me?” Most guys don’t want to know that some guy sharing the shower room is lusting after them. Besides, some neanderthal types aren’t at all nice to gays –and it would be better for them not to be sharing barracks and bathrooms with the neanderthals.
June 13, 2010, 3:08 amCornellian says:
I know a former navy SEAL who got involved –he thought he was straight and had a girlfriend until a charismatic guy put the sexual moves on him. He became so depressed over his moral lapse and what it said to him about his sexual identity that he killed himself.
I suppose I have more confidence in the young people of today than you do. Confidence, first that a straight guy isn’t attracted to other guys, even “charismatic” ones, second that they’re not so emotionally brittle as to commit suicide for such an idiotic reason.
June 13, 2010, 3:09 amCornellian says:
I have a male friend who was in the military and said an officer pursued him. That was years ago and he found it very uncomfortable and disturbing to have a predator officer after him. He doesn’t think they belong in the military whether they tell or not.
So kick out the predators, including the straight ones, and keep the non-predators, including the gay ones.
June 13, 2010, 3:12 amBarb says:
I think you have no sense of “the common good” or the value of mothers. All we need is a bunch of mentally ill kids running around because they lost their mothers at critical life stages –it reportedly affects their self image and sense of security when their mothers aren’t with them. The mother-child bond is intense and important. I thought they WERE forced to go if they signed up and then had a child –too bad –they have to go, don’t they?
June 13, 2010, 3:14 amBarb says:
This happened in the 90′s. Not so long ago. My husband agrees that he would not be remotely weak in the presence of a predator male wanting to make him “feel good.” He’d want to knock his block off. A lot of men have a visceral reaction to gays liking them. makes them mad –like why me?? I’m not one of you guys!” But guys are sexually volatile in their youth –and some have “male hunger” due to lack of fathering –so many single parent homes these days without dads doing their job of affirming their sons’ masculine self-image. We are raising a vulnerable generation.
We are pushing, pushing, pushing in the culture –to inflame imaginations about what kinds of sensual thrills a man can give a man. I think we’ll see a lot more bisexual experimentation from now on –since society is no longer barring the door. The more the stigma for homosexuality is reduced, the more people will sex-periment. It won’t be good.
June 13, 2010, 3:23 amCornellian says:
“Yet, common sense says mothers of young children and babies have no business going.”
Why not let those mothers make that decision for themselves? No one forces them to go.
“I think you have no sense of “the common good” or the value of mothers.”
And therein we see the difference between the libertarian and the conservative.
June 13, 2010, 3:26 amCornellian says:
My husband agrees that he would not be remotely weak in the presence of a predator male wanting to make him “feel good.” He’d want to knock his block off.
That makes you feel better? If you’re worried about gay men, as you obviously are, then worry about the supposedly straight guy who loudly tells you about his animosity towards gay people.
A lot of men have a visceral reaction to gays liking them. makes them mad.
I know quite a lot of straight men and I have yet to meet one who gave a moment’s thought to what gay men thought of them. Perhaps the men you’ve met aren’t quite what you think they are.
I think we’ll see a lot more bisexual experimentation from now on –since society is no longer barring the door.
Yep, followed by cats and dogs living together and the downfall of Western civilization. I give it five years, tops. Plan your finances accordingly.
June 13, 2010, 3:33 amChris Travers says:
I’d point out that different states have different standards for religious objections. For example, Washington State has remarkably strong protections and has had so for quite a long time. (The establishment clause issues are similarly so strong that it took an amendment to the State Constitution for the state to hire prison chaplains.)
The Washington State approach seems to allow for the sort of exemptions you provide except in narrow circumstances (regarding public morality or public peace and safety), and in cases where a religious group wants to do something illegal but not strictly speaking demanded by the religion (for example, have homeless people living in their back yard) the Court has held the state Constitution requires the city to make every reasonable effort to accommodate the church. What this means is that if a city flat-out refuses to allow a practice (outside the peace and security of the state exception), the church can usually go ahead and do it, and the city becomes powerless to stop it. Interesting….
(It’s not proper to call Washington’s 1997 amendment an RFRA because it didn’t really strengthen free exercise significantly. The free exercise provisions have been very strong in Washington State for around a hundred years.)
Also most states, even those that have RFRA-type statutes or Constitutional provisions demanding strict scrutiny when burdening religious freedom, these apply in different ways to family law. Washington State, for example, requires a showing of actual or imminent harm before religion can be considered in custody decisions, etc. Many other states routinely consider such provisions even if the state has an RFRA-type regimen in place.
June 13, 2010, 4:38 amChris Travers says:
Question: How is that different from fathers of small children?
June 13, 2010, 4:41 amChris Travers says:
Yep. People project self-incriminations onto others. If someone’s accusing lots of people of being gay, that tells you something about the person’s sexual orientation and that he/she is uncomfortable with it.
June 13, 2010, 4:43 amClayton says:
Then why does congress make laws which respect (acknowledge) religious establishments? What am I missing?
June 13, 2010, 5:20 amEconGrad says:
Barb, I’m confused. Are you opposed to allowing women in the military at all? Given your position on gays in the military, I would hope so, but I honestly can’t tell from your posts.
June 13, 2010, 8:49 amBarb says:
No, I think there are duties for women in the military –nursing, the choir (I have a friend there), desk jobs, teaching —jobs suited to their strength and skills –not combat and not training along side men. Interestingly, in photos from the war on terror, I don’t notice many women on what appear to be battle zones/front lines. I hope that’s the case. They have no business being on shipboard –except for grandmas like me. People CAN be chaste working in close proximity with the opposite sex, of course, but putting young people out to sea and overseas for months at a time, away from spouses and sweethearts –it’s very hard on the people at home, on the relationships. Our military should have some built-in respect for spouses, family, etc. –and one way would be to NOT treat women as if there were no sexual difference, putting them in confined situations with men for long periods of time.
June 13, 2010, 9:55 amBarb says:
O it’s different –the younger the children, the more important the mother’s presence in the home. That’s a mother’s primary role when she has children. Father’s are not a substitute for mothers, and vice-versa –but fathers have a traditional duty to defend the nation–and its ideals abroad –so that we might be free and prosperous as we were before our economy dipped. We are experimenting to see how well kids will fare with their mothers abroad. America isn’t doing very well as it is in our child-rearing and providing stable homes for kids. I work with kids who are disadvantaged and perpetually disappointed because their parents are dysfunctional in their relationships. We experiment with sexuality to our detriment.
June 13, 2010, 10:01 amBarb says:
I do worry about gay-bashers. Their motivation isn’t religious and doesn’t have to be doubts about their own sexuality–but could be. NO one should be calling anyone names in school, casting doubt in the minds of youth about their normalcy –just because they aren’t stereotypically macho or feminine in their mannerisms, interests, appearance, etc. Nor should any counselors and teachers be suggesting to any of our kids that they might be gay–that some of them are inevitably gay. It’s hard enough to be an adolescent without this kind of pressure toward self-doubt and sex-ploration.
My idea of sex ed is to encourage boys to be happy that they are boys and girls, likewise. To know that their physical and other differences are for the purpose of marital union with the possibility of parenting. That men and women both bring essential qualities to their children –to a marriage –to the family.
June 13, 2010, 10:08 amBarb says:
It wasn’t “loudly” and it wasn’t animosity toward the persons. It was disgust for predatory overtures to members of the same sex.
That’s that old accusation–if anyone rails against sin, it must be because he’s tempted by that sin. Tain’t necessarily so –at all. I am concerned for confused youth being tempted into a diseased and unhappy lifestyle –delusional about their sexuality.
Actually, I’m very empathetic –and believe I can imagine how a person would acquire a gay self-image –and it’s heart-breaking to see.
June 13, 2010, 10:14 amChris Travers says:
BTW, for those wondering where my point about homeless living in the back yard of the church came from the WA State Supreme Court took that up and a year ago sided with the church over the city. Basically they said that since the city refused to consider the request, the church was allowed to do it anyway.
June 13, 2010, 10:16 amKen Arromdee says:
Also, anyone who complains a bit too strongly about possible terrorists probably harbors secret desires to be a terrorist himself. And I guess all the members of the KKK secretly like black people.
June 13, 2010, 11:38 amCornellian says:
And I guess all the members of the KKK secretly like black people.
No, they loudly complain about the inferiority of black people to make themselves feel better about their own personal inferiority. Thus, the thinking goes, they may be a 55 year old high school dropout, divorced 3 times and living in their mother’s house on welfare, but at least they’re white. The more they can denigrate non-whites, the more they can rely on being white as a substitute for actually accomplishing anything themselves.
June 13, 2010, 11:47 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
I’ve really enjoyed this discussion. Because of all of the problems or side effects w/ permitting exemptions mentioned above, it’s clear to me that whether we live under a statutory exemption or constitutional exemption regime, courts are often going to find that the law in question doesn’t substantially burden the religious practice. Too many exemptions, even on the basis of sincere religious beliefs, makes it far to difficult for the state to enact generally applicable legislation. For anyone who is interested in the literature on the free execise clause more generally, other than what Professor Volokh and Professor Michael McConnell have written in law review articles, I would recommend three books: Martha Nussbaum’s _Liberty of Conscience_, Eisgruber and Sager’s _Religious Freedom and the Constitution_, and Kent Greenawalt’s book (the best one that I’ve ever read if you’re looking for a comprehensive overview). Greenawalt also wrote a separate volume on the Establishment Clause.
June 13, 2010, 11:49 amKen Arromdee says:
But that’s not the same thing. Even if they’re projecting based on worries about their own inferiority, “inferiority” is a very general idea. Once you get more specific, it’s no longer true. Racists who worry about black people committing a lot of burglary, for instance, aren’t concealing their own desire to commit burglary. And someone who preaches that Jews drink Christian blood probably doesn’t harbor a secret desire to drink blood himself. So the most you can say is that people who think gays are sinful are worried about their own sin, but not specifically about committing the particular sins they say gay people are.
All that this really is is name-calling. You say that religious homophobes are secretly gay because you know the concept bothers them. There’s no logic to it.
June 13, 2010, 12:09 pmChris Travers says:
No. But someone who accuses everyone else of being a terrorists is someone that clearly has such desires. Worrying about terrorism and accusing everyone else of being a terrorist is something quite different.
No. But things they say bad about black people (or Catholics, or Asians) are generally things they fear in themselves. If you’ve ever been around KKK folks (I have more than I care to), it’s quite obvious.
June 13, 2010, 12:21 pmChris Travers says:
True, but if the person is accusing lots of people around them of being theives, you’ll want to watch your wallet when that person is around.
Granted my initial assumption was that people who worry a lot about gays are likely to be the ones accusing a lot of people of being gay. That’s not necessary true however. I suppose you could have people who are just worried about their own sexual urges (generally, not specifically) and who worry about gays for that reason. Such people might not be accusing folks of being gay.
June 13, 2010, 12:26 pmKen Arromdee says:
“Sexual urges” still isn’t general enough. You can have someone who is worried about their own sins complaining about the sins of another group. But it doesn’t work on a level more specific than “sins”. Do you really think that anti-death-penalty activists secretly want to execute criminals, that members of PETA have a secret desire to abuse animals, and that a racist belief that black people in the street would mug you given half a chance means that deep down, you want to steal someone’s wallet?
You can even look at other threads here. Is everyone posting that they don’t want the government to use emergency powers to take away people’s privacy harboring desires to control the Internet and violate privacy themselves?
June 13, 2010, 1:20 pmCornellian says:
All that this really is is name-calling. You say that religious homophobes are secretly gay because you know the concept bothers them. There’s no logic to it.
There are plenty of examples of the logic for anyone who reads the news. It’s not necessarily true in every single instance, but it’s common enough that those spouting the most vehemently anti-gay rhetoric are deservedly regarded with suspicion.
June 13, 2010, 1:51 pmCornellian says:
All that this really is is name-calling. You say that religious homophobes are secretly gay because you know the concept bothers them. There’s no logic to it.
And it’s not just the “gay people are bad” aspect of it, it’s the way they regard same-sex sexual activity as something insidiously attractive, like crack cocaine, such that straight people are always on the brink of being tempted into it by good looking gay people. Heck, just read some of Barb’s posts above to see how that mind set works.
So yeah, when a guy says society needs to keep gay people at a distance so as to protect straight people from temptation, it’s quite reasonable to assume it’s a temptation he feels himself. I’ve never yet met the straight guy who needed any special effort to avoid being tempted into having sex with other men.
June 13, 2010, 2:05 pmBarb says:
Right.
June 13, 2010, 4:42 pmBarb says:
My concern is horny youth always eager for physical contact and release. They may be primarily hetero in their interests –but look at the story lines on how older gays induct younger men and boys into their activities –showing them hetero porn to arouse them, then putting the moves on them, saying this is what loving fathers/men do –”it’s ok to love each other this way” “I’ll show you how to be a man”–as they take advantage of normal libido and a young person’s admiration of charismatic same sex older person who is a lot of things he admires –especially if the younger male is fatherless or emotionally needy for male approval.
A lot of roads lead to Rome –but it’s not a destination I want for my kids.
June 13, 2010, 4:48 pmthe other laptop says:
I think it’s quite clear to everyone that if your kids walked around wearing togas, spouting Cicero in an impecable accent, you still wouldn’t acknowledge that they just might be Roman. And I suspect everyone — you included — is grateful you never faced that challenge.
June 13, 2010, 5:08 pmBarb says:
What you say is true for mature, moral men who have access to women, who have never had gay sex –who would be disgusted with themselves if they crossed that line and can’t imagine how men have this interest–and thus, TRULY, have no attraction.
But some guys will do a goat, a woman or a man, a hooker, and not regard themselves as strictly oriented toward men –just toward orgasm –and maybe the forbidden fruit enticement. The more perverse, the more exciting. The Men on the down low deny being gay or romantically attracted to men –just opportunists who want sex the gay way now and then –like Haggard. His male prostitute, according to both of them, did not have a “relationship” with him –just an arrangement for sex and drugs.
Why would Geo. Michael, the British singer, who had a lover/companion, need to go to a known gay park restroom for anonymous quickie? except for the sheer perversity of it? He was arrested because he said he couldn’t resist the overtures of the undercover policeman –because he was “cute.” Oprah asked him what his boyfriend thought –and she was looking for some remorse on George’s part and some disappointment on the lover’s part –but got neither. They don’t expect to be faithful to one another. It’s so much not about romance and commitment but about orgasm by perverse means.
I know a young man quite well who was molested by mom’s boyfriend and she later kicked her son out of her house at 18, thinking he would mature this way, and the only way he knew to survive was living with a gay man. That ended when Mom let him come home. He’s been with women, too. He thinks of himself as basically straight, but he has been through such damaging experience. I feel nothing but compassion for him. He is very macho in appearance and manner and you wouldn’t guess the experiences he’s had.
I don’t want our culture to keep promoting this sickness as good.
June 13, 2010, 5:10 pmthe other laptop says:
Your empathy, Barb, is clearly a gift from God. Truly.
June 13, 2010, 5:16 pmBarb says:
It’s just possible –and likely–that people who don’t like the “gaying” of America, are NOT the ones accusing others of gay desires (gays and their defenders do that), are NOT the ones who bash gays, labeling them in youth, and hating them, being mean to them, ostracizing them before they even “come out,” but people who truly believe it is sin to lie with a man as with a woman. Who truly believe homosexual life is not a gay way to live, but a sad, disease-risky life to avoid. It’s just possible that we who care about child and adolescent development want a culture that helps kids feel good about their bodies and their sex-role potential to be husbands with wives, parents of children in the normal way. It could be that we are sick of tv entertainment (and schools) promoting homosexual life as something desirable –when it hasn’t yet proven to be that.
June 13, 2010, 5:22 pmKen Arromdee says:
By this reasoning, people who complain about actual, literal, crack cocaine dealers also harbor a secret desire to use it. For that matter, anyone worried about the spread of any ideology secretly wants to convert to it, whether the target of the complaint is radical Islam, or anti-privacy sentiment, or whatever. If you’re in Nazi Germany and anxious about the spread of anti-Semitism, are you secretly anti-Semitic?
But at least you’ve helped discourage anti-Walmart protesting. After all, you’ve just demonstrated that people who complain about the harmful effect Walmart has on their communities really want to participate in that harm themselves.
June 13, 2010, 5:39 pmBarb says:
Empathy, of course, is the ability to imagine what others feel and think. I try to do that about homosexuals. But my empathy does not lead me to conclude that sin is not sin, as you would like me to do, Laptop.
I remember youthful friendships with same-sex friends whom I admired, whom I wanted to be more like, whose acceptance of me was very important. I always had a best friend who was smart, attractive, and popular –I was just smart –at least, smarter than average. I liked the boys ALWAYS, but I was very emotionally committed to best girl friends. Not every kid experiences “best friends” to the extent I did and I think it’s a good developmental experience. But I can IMAGINE where that desire for same-sex belonging denied (perhaps starting with Mother) could become a fixation –a need –that could become sexually involved just by opportunity — though I truly never desired my friends romantically or sexually. I know the vultures here will say otherwise –as a means of “name-calling” and ridicule –as one of you pointed out earlier. (Some debate tactic!)
June 13, 2010, 5:43 pmCornellian says:
By this reasoning, people who complain about actual, literal, crack cocaine dealers also harbor a secret desire to use it.
If that analogy held up, where are the Ted Haggards and George Rekers of the crack cocaine world?
June 13, 2010, 6:36 pmCornellian says:
Empathy, of course, is the ability to imagine what others feel and think. I try to do that about homosexuals.
I prefer to let them say how the feel and think. I believe you get more accurate information that way.
June 13, 2010, 6:38 pmGuy says:
Or at least they acknowledge the objective fact that smoking crack makes you feel really, really good. Which makes one wonder why they assume that straight men would find gay sex to be pleasurable.
I’m not in the “If you’re a homophobe you must really be gay” camp. But I do think it’s true that the average gay man who can’t accept his orientation is more likely to be a vocal homophobe than the average straight man who wouldn’t be able to accept his orientation if he were gay.
June 13, 2010, 6:47 pmthe other vulture says:
Your empathy and your insight into psychosexual development are exceeded only by your taxonomic skills.
June 13, 2010, 6:53 pmBarb says:
Are you talking to me? And your analytical skills are exceeded only by your courtesy.
Or more denial. Though, I am always glad to discuss homosexuality with homosexuals -they aren’t.
June 13, 2010, 8:18 pmChrisTS says:
Barb:
Well, I’m perplexed.
June 13, 2010, 8:22 pmPragmaticist says:
New Zealand very recently banned kosher slaughter as being less humane than slaughter where the animal is rendered unconscious.
I wonder whether such a law would be constitutional here in the U.S.? What if the law also banned the importation of meat slaughtered in a kosher way? Orthodox Jews are NOT required by Jewish law to eat meat. Eugene would you care to comment? By the way, I was raised Orthodox and used to be a vegetarian.
June 13, 2010, 9:17 pmJasmindad says:
Barb, You keep saying homosexuality is a sin. Sin is a religious category, and you are welcome to your belief that it is a sin. (As it happens, there are many Christians who don’t regard homosexuality as a sin, but let’s set that aside.) But I don’t see why I, who do not share your religious views and do not regard homosexuality as a sin, should base my decisions about who should serve in the Army based the concept of sin in your religion. I know in your discussion you are mixing up religious talk (sin) with arguments that don’t arise from specific religious beliefs, but it would be useful if you can stick to the latter, because then others who don’t share your religion can evaluate them.
June 13, 2010, 9:29 pmthe other laptop says:
If my failure to hit the “quote” button qualifies as discourtesy, how ever would one categorize the vile and disgusting things you have said about gay people in this and other threads? In any case, I offer my sincere apologies*.
The answer, of course, is “religious exemption”. I think everyone understands how that concept works in this case, regardless of confusion as to how it would operate in anti-discrimination law. Even I get it.
* See, I did better this time. Not bad for a would-be predator, eh?
June 13, 2010, 10:04 pmBob says:
Is it not possible to kosherly slaughter an unconscious animal?
June 13, 2010, 10:35 pmPragmaticist says:
@Bob – Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law currently requires the animal to be conscious.
June 13, 2010, 10:38 pmChris Travers says:
Wouldn’t work.
Under Smith, of course the state could ban slaughter of conscious animals. However, it couldn’t do so if motivated by animosity towards religious groups (for example, laws banning animal sacrifice are Unconstitutional). Moreover, the federal government, unless repealing the RFRA or abridging it, could not do so regarding USDA-inspected plants (I don’t know if they could defund such inspections however, effectively banning the process for slaughterhouses producing meat for interstate commerce).
I don’t think the federal government can Constitutionally tell me I can’t buy an animal from a reasonably local farmer and slaughter it myself for my family either as that’s not interstate commerce. At most local land use codes might ban slaughtering within, say, city limits. But that wouldn’t prevent me from slaughtering at the farm where I make the purchase and then transporting home.*
Oh wait. I forgot that everything is interstate commerce these days….. Seriously, I think this would be over the limit given the limits that Congress currently respects in these areas. It is certainly an order more removed from interstate commerce than the conduct at issue in Wickard.
Then we get to state Constitutions. In Washington, the legislature must certainly could not ban this as a Constitutional issue, so slaugherhouses serving Washingtonians only would be clearly able to continue to engage in kosher slaughter.
So any kosher slaughter ban would be at least somewhat difficult to enforce. At most it would simply force Orthodox Jews to move to states respecting freedom of religion more….
June 13, 2010, 11:21 pmCJColucci says:
Has anyone looked into the way cases have come out under these various standards and determined whether the standards make much of a difference in actual results?
June 14, 2010, 10:45 amVaLawGuy says:
The following article provides a good discussion of the O Centro case: Matthew Nicholson, Note, Is O Centro a Sign of Hope for RFRA Claimaints, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1281 (2009), available at: http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=274.
June 14, 2010, 11:27 amBarb says:
“If my failure to hit the “quote” button qualifies as discourtesy…”
Does it? That wasn’t my complaint.
If you are calling yourself a predator, here, I guess you are saying you are homosexual and a predator by my insulting opinions?
My opinion of gay activity does not incline me to personally dislike any gays I know –and I know some. It is more likely to incline them to literally hate me. And I understand that. But it doesn’t help with dialogue. However, I will never be moved on this issue, to believe that homosexuality is inevitable and immutable for some people–i.e. without remedy. I think it can be prevented. I think it’s an addiction, a fixation –not unlike other abnormal sexual interests such as chronic adultery, prostitute use, porn addiction, and pedophila. I would love a candid talk with homosexuals –with honesty about their thoughts as children, about their parents, about their early exposure to sex, nudity, etc. One psychologist took 100 gays in his practice and wrote a book years ago when gays were willing to be candid, called “The Unhappy Gays.” I think what he learned and reported there still stands as insight into the formation of homosexuality. I think it is now more difficult to get candor about gay origins because they have an agenda to say “everything in my formative years was positive, normal, healthy and as it should be –I was just born gay. Always knew I was different.” I don’t believe that claim –except that bright people tend to think they are exceptional and “different” and do think outside the box –even sexually.
Here’s a question for you, are there retarded homosexuals and very many of average intelligence? I’m betting they are all “gifted.”
June 14, 2010, 1:09 pmzuch says:
Why? Not sure how you draw this distinction. What about the interestingly named Employment Division v. Smith, where drug use and employment directly collided?
He was indeed confused. That is what “asserting your rights” is about. Sometimes messy, sometimes confrontational, and sometimes very ugly (like Nazis marching in Skokie). He might be “disgusted” by homosexuality itself as well, but that’s a different matter.
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 1:21 pmBarb says:
Yes, I have plenty of non-religious arguments on that topic. I do, however, think there are first thoughts regarding sex that one can recognize as inappropriate, i.e. wrong, immoral –or “sinful.” Because of how they are taught. (And religion is part of that) I believe that rejecting such thoughts at the outset can prevent addiction/fixation –just as normal, moral and sober folks turn away thoughts of incest at the first inkling.
Sex is an urge for which we need subtle preparation from early on –affirming the child’s identification with mom or dad’s sex, giving positive teaching about both sexes and their respective roles, teaching the rights and wrongs of relationships. They need chaperonage, and shaping –to direct and corral youthful libido.
June 14, 2010, 1:28 pmCJColucci says:
It is simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.
Barb:
If you’ve ever been to summer camp, or served in the military, or been away at a religious retreat, or any other function that sticks people into barracks or bunk houses, this has almost certainly happened to you. I’d be interested in knowing how that experience went. If you can’t identify the time(s) you had that experience, which would not surprise me, I’d be interested in what implications you draw from that fact.
June 14, 2010, 1:36 pmBarb says:
I think there is a limit to public expression when it becomes public indecency unfit for kids to see on a public street –and I would’ve ruled against the Nazis in Skokie. I don’t see any right to march against a race or ethnic or religious group in the USA, which demonstration is likely to cause violence. Heck, I wouldn’t even support a parade against homosexuality in the name of free speech.
The gay pride parades angrily rail against decency and morality in a vulgar way, castigating religious figures, and flaunting sexuality, etc.
June 14, 2010, 1:39 pmzuch says:
Ahhhh, yes. ACLU lawyers top the pay scales, exceeding even the ambulance chasers and class action tort case lawyers. That’s why I wanted to be one; I’d be driving a Lamborghini (at 60 mph) in 4 seconds flat….
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 1:41 pmzuch says:
IC. So mothers should stay home for “the common good” because that’s where their value is. ‘Nuff said.
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 1:51 pmzuch says:
Wrong.
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 1:57 pmzuch says:
If you’re not familiar with that case (cited by Volokh in the actual post), may I suggest you read more and post less?
You didn’t answer my question. But at this point, I’m not sure that’s such a loss to the thread.
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 2:04 pmBolie Williams IV says:
I think that this is one of the most interesting comments in the thread so far. The discussion of gays is interesting, but I believe really a tangent. What qualifies as a “religious” belief? What about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Discordianism? Wicca?
June 14, 2010, 2:16 pmzuch says:
I heard on the radio the other day a ‘discussion’ as to what is “religious belief”, and one person (advocating that atheists be considered religious as well) was asserting that (presumably) Pastafarians also be included as having religious beliefs because of their belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I thought that perhaps he was missing something. But I can’t figure out just what; maybe it’ll come to me….
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 2:38 pmptt says:
What an odd question. Of course there are. Are all the gay people you “know” gifted?
[now back to the regular laptop]
June 14, 2010, 3:26 pmzuch says:
OIC. Since those heady and halcyon days of openness, gays have ‘clammed up’ about how they really feel. How’s the weather on your planet there?
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 3:54 pmzuch says:
… not to mention the rather obvious question: Just what kinds of gays would be seeking the services of a psychologist? Did this illustrious author and psychologist bother to bring up that issue in his brilliant manifesto about “The Unhappy Gays”? Might such a question shed light on the reliability of any conclusions he might have reached?
Ummmm … Google is your friend. Aha! Timothy LaHaye, “The Unhappy Gays”. I’ve heard that name before somewhere … perhaps from my psychology research days?
Cheers,
June 14, 2010, 5:07 pmDeanS says:
I have always been fascinated by the origins of various religions. I’m also constantly surprised when I find out that people seem constitutionally afraid of rationally examining the geneses and concepts of their beliefs (please pardon the pun – I’m irredeemable when it comes to them).
Take for example the origins of the Christian bible. Aside from seminarians, I would hazard a guess that most Christians have no idea what the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, or Trent were and how central it is to the tenets of their faith. Or how elements of those stories existed in earlier religions. I recall speaking with a friend who became a priest. We were discussing the Book of Revelations and he told me (I haven’t been able to find this documented) that it was included as canon by only 1 vote. How different the protestant and catholic worldview would be if it hadn’t received that vote!
I know neither my mother-in-law, a devote Christian that reads her bible and attends bible studies weekly, nor my father, a retired Baptist minister knows very much about them (my father some, my mother-in-law nothing).
They, along with Barb, seem either unable or unwilling to accept that their definition of “sin” and morality is not a universal constant. While religion may have influenced secular law, it is not necessary to make exceptions to the law based upon religion for it to have worth. That is akin to modifying modern chemistry to confirm to the rules of alchemy.
To an outsider, many religious beliefs are irrational. I don’t just mean to an atheist, but to other religions those beliefs may appear odd. For example, look at the different views on the eating of pork.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by H. L. Mencken –“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. “
I don’t think that carving out exemptions for what are essentially codified superstitions is in society’s best interests.
June 14, 2010, 5:50 pmClayton says:
Yes Barb, that does happen, there are in fact many websites entirely devoted to such things (between consenting adults of course, and mostly probably fake sure) but that doesn’t make anyone gay. 30% of men have had sexual encounters with other men, and yet they aren’t all gay. I am gay, and I have had sex with several straight guys, it didn’t make them gay either. You have an incorrect view of human sexuality, and an extremist definition of things. Just because two men have sex, doesn’t make them gay, and there is nothing wrong with that anyway. If a straight guy gets drunk and/or coerced into having sex with a man and he doesn’t enjoy it, then hes not gay and is unlikely to do it again. Admitting that its possible to make someone gay in this manner begs the question about yourself. Is it possible for you to be made homosexual in this way? If not, why would you assume others can be?
I am actually disappointed, I’d assumed this blog was on a higher level of discourse.
And no one can seem to answer my question about why congress seems to constantly violate the establishment clause by making laws which pay respect to religious establishments.
June 15, 2010, 4:34 amChris Travers says:
I don’t entirely disagree with you here, but I do thing the role of the law should not depend on religious views or specific lines drawn by a specific religion. For example, my religion (Norse Neopaganism) doesn’t seen anything inherently wrong with premarital sex or even anything wrong with abortion.
I also think that the discussion of addiction to sex entirely misses the mark. The fact is that the sex drive is very powerful– either we control it or it controls us. If it controls us, that leads to broken marriages, and many other problems. You seem to have some understanding of this but fall back on fixation and addiction when the real issue is just self-control.
Sure. No question there. And this should be a matter where parents should be the primary influences on the children. I’d assume you would agree with that, that as a Norse Neopagan I should have a right to raise my children to value monogamous marriages but not wait for marriage to have sex, and that you can teach your children what you want.
Here’s where I disagree with you. You’ve already established that you’re anti-freedom (which isn’t necessarily good or bad in my view) but here the issue is in government-enforced limits to free speech. I’d support a right to teach that eventually it would be a good idea to violently overthrow the government (Yates v. United States), and even a right to advocate genocide in the abstract to a willing audience (Brandenburg v. Ohio). Certainly a Nazi march is less harmful to the public than those.
The question is whether we have to be PROTECTED from such marches. I really don’t see a case that says we can be without allowing for the sorts of mob-rule laws that abridge our political process. So here again the issue’s self-control. We can teach our kids to have it or we can decide not to.
June 15, 2010, 7:17 amzuch says:
Like this, perhaps?:
Cheers,
June 15, 2010, 2:13 pmChris Travers says:
I think people need, to some extent, seemingly arbitrary lines around acceptable behavior. The question is whether we should have a government that supports pluralism and therefore refuses to draw these lines itself, leaving it to smaller units of people associating by choice.
BTW, in terms of eating pork, I think chewing raw pork was a part of some old pagan Celtic rituals (Imbas forosnai for example). IIRC, raw meat of dogs and cats could be substituted for pork.
June 16, 2010, 12:19 amBarb says:
Did the Iceland gay marriage article disappear from the June 13th (or thereabouts) posts here at VC blog? and why, I wonder?
About Dobson –I think he’s right –that the son should see his father as in a shower or when using public rest room –I do remember a homosexual reporting years ago in a national news magazine on the topic of homosexuality that he felt aroused in the showers at age 5 or so at the Y –and concluded he was weird. “I always knew I was different.” He knew nothing of the normalcy of pelting shower waters on his little body, I assume, nor of the feelings that can be evoked by nudity itself, one’s own or others (most children are oblivious –and most adults just find it awkward in public showers) –and most kids might not notice it as something to think about. But very precocious kids notice more than average –and I ask again, are most homosexuals exceptionally bright? I think they are. Tim La Haye noted that in his study of 100 gays he counseled/interviewed for his book on The Unhappy Gays –written before gays were defensive about their childhood experiences/family, etc. Now we get the standard answer of the gay agenda: that my folks were normal; nothing caused my homosexuality; I was born that way.
Dr. Dobson is simply saying we can subtly help our kids identify with their same-sex parents and have normal orientation. It’s worth a try. Of course, men should wrestle with their boys, fish with them, teach them about sports and help them be competent in ANYthing –and to feel that whatever their competency is –making clothes (tailors), music, acting, video gaming, cooking, and no matter if they are gentle and sensitive or rough and tumble guys –Dad affirms that they are masculine like him –and never suggests otherwise.
June 16, 2010, 12:46 pmBarb says:
It does concern parents who care about the issue if they notice that their little boy is identifying more with girls and as a girl –such that he wants to be in a dress and be only with girls –or feels ostracized by other boys. If he has sissified mannerisms. He’s not to be viewed as you said, “freakish” –but they want to help him, because being stereotypically homosexual is not a happy way to grow up –no matter what we do in school and law to make it so. And it predicts a lot of high risk sexual behavior coming up.
Children can be subtly guided into normal orientation–that’s my conviction and people who do it, have heterosexual children. I don’t think it’s helpful, however, to let the kids know you think they have a problem and go to a psych.–especially when they are very young. Just start parenting INTENTIONALLY –to cultivate identification and affection with the same sex parent. Hard to do if he’s not around. Hard to do in a lesbian parented home. And single parented homes, too –which is why making marriage work is so important to future generations.
June 16, 2010, 1:13 pmBarb says:
I don’t disagree with much that you have said here –I know that having gay sex doesn’t mean you prefer it. The Men on the down low reportedly prefer women, romantically, but like to have a quickie with the guys once in awhile. They are after an experience, not necessarily a relationship. Or perhaps they really ARE gay in their relationship desires, because they lack fathers in the community of MSWM.
I was referring to the molestation of adolescents by men who prefer males (call them pederasts/pedophiles or not); I believe they can make a boy addicted to gay sex –or at least bisexual –because sexual pleasure is addictive –and many pedophiles/pederasts mean to make it pleasurable –and are happy to cultivate homosexual preference in others for their own enjoyment.
As for me, it couldn’t happen to me, a happily married woman with strong religious convictions about sexuality. but I could’ve been confused during youth because I truly adored my same sex friends intensely and the guys weren’t overwhelmingly enamored with me (I managed by the time I was in h.s. to attract a couple) but I wasnt the pretty popular type and I envied those who were. I always liked guys and had a crush on somebody –but I also was one of those who felt, “I’m different –odd –exceptional.” (which is what gays say about themselves.) In college, I preferred the company of guys for their humor –and have always been bored with ladies’ baby showers and the like, though I participate and give them. I’d rather blog or read.
But I’m happily heterosexual and absolutely untempted by adultery of any orientation. I do think I could’ve been bi in involvement –IF I had no religious upbringing and had the culture condoning and pushing gayness on us then as now. It’s hard to even imagine it, but I do remember some childhood experiences that could’ve bent the twig. I was eager to RECEIVE sexual experience –but not to give it. to be touched by anybody–but not to touch anyone. I think there is selfishness –immature self-love–in homosexual relationships more than in the mature heterosexual relationship –where giving grows. It will make you angry that I say so, but I really think homosexuality is the result of arrested development. I think any one has the potential to be so “arrested” at vulnerable stages in their immaturity.
So, there but for the grace of God, go I. I have a great concern for kids who can be directed toward Rome on any one of many roads –as you were.
June 16, 2010, 1:47 pmBarb says:
Marriage law is even more about children than about religion. Though the majority of Americans always had religion to back up their Adam and Eve view of marriage. I can give you plenty of secular reasons for marriage between one man and one woman and no other combination.
June 16, 2010, 1:56 pmBarb says:
I don’t think it’s a moral right you have –but a legal one to raise your kids to fornicate if that’s what you think is good for them. Although, no parent should be arranging for his children to have premarital sex or promoting it. That would be abusive, I think. And I would hope you thought SOME AGE was too young for sexual experience. All sorts of tragic results come from too early sex experience. For one, kids go through “divorce” when they are dumped –and they are too young to have such trauma.
June 16, 2010, 2:02 pmBarb says:
I believe his counselees really didn’t want to be gay and sought counsel. This was possibly before the sexual revolution –or early in it.
June 16, 2010, 2:07 pmBarb says:
Yes, we do.
June 16, 2010, 2:13 pmFloridan says:
Barb: A lot of men have a visceral reaction to gays liking them. makes them mad.
Most straight men and women have probably been propositioned by someone of the same sex. Most treat it the way they would if they were propositioned by someone of the opposite sex for whom they had no sexual desire; they treat it as just one of those things that happen in life.
Those who get mad? I’m not sure what’s going on there.
July 9, 2010, 7:27 pmKyle says:
I think the drafters of the Constitution would have said “Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment” if their intention was to use the nounal connotation of the word. Right?
July 9, 2010, 7:54 pmDoc Merlin says:
Agreed. As far as I can tell, it means congress cannot make laws about religious institutions.
July 9, 2010, 8:46 pmLarryA says:
It’s politically correct to discriminate against people for the purpose of controlling destructive behavior, and owning guns is a prime example of destructive behavior.
July 9, 2010, 10:04 pmVlad Konings says:
We could save a lot of ink and trees if the government could just bring itself to decide that private institutions are private and their proprietors should be mostly free to run them as they wish.
The argument that this would lead to a massive wave of discrimination is weak at best.
July 12, 2010, 5:25 pmClayton says:
That might work if private institutions were private. Mostly though, they exist to propagate some form of philosophical memeplex. When private institutions wish to interact with the outside world they are no longer wholly private, and should be regulated. More on, I would go as far as to say there is no such thing as a private institution in an encompassing society. Private institutions and private individuals benefit from the larger society in many enumerable ways and as such should be required to follow certain societal rules.
So for instance, if a church say, doesn’t want to employ homosexuals, they should have the common courtesy to not drive on roads that homosexuals paid for. The masses at large try not to discriminate against people’s entitlement to due process/equal protection etc. based on race/gender/etc. and therefore “private institutions” should try not to discriminate in similar ways.
If they DO want to discriminate, the least they could do is pay taxes to offset the societal cost of their discrimination. Now that I think about it, buying the right to discriminate by paying higher taxes is an interesting idea.
Also, churches should not enjoy any specific legal status as they are, well, basically social clubs with shared delusions. If they want to be tax free they should operate more like other tax-exempt organizations.
August 17, 2010, 2:56 am