It's against my religion
A recent ballot initiative in (of all places) North Dakota, which was styled "North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment: Measure 3", was voted down by a reported 2:1 margin.
Here's the interesting bit of the initiative:
Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
Am I the only person who sees the holes in this language? Hmm...apparently not, since it was voted down by the aforementioned 2:1 margin.
The way that bit of legalistic language is crafted, it would provide someone with an affirmative defense for any real or perceived infraction of law. All they would have to say is "it's against my religion". And it would, as written, cover anything and everything conceivable, from jaywalking to paying taxes to capital murder. Imagine, as one particularly pithy comment on a forum read, the consternation and frustration of a judge..."Your Honor, my religion compelled me to shoot Snooki." If this had passed, the shooter would have walked free, pausing only long enough to polish their halo.
Time for my take on the matter. It's really very simple. The First Amendment's "establishment" clause is there for a reason, and thinly-veiled attempts at making an end run around it are doomed to fail. I hope they are, at least. I, for one, have no desire to live in Margaret Atwood's "Republic of Gilead", and that seems to be the direction certain elements are attempting to push this nation. In my youth, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That oath didn't give me any right to pick or choose which parts of the Constitution I upheld, as if it were an à la carte menu. It's all or nothing. And I choose to support all of it. That, by definition, means I stand against any who would see the Constitution undermined in any way.
I think what really disturbs me most, though, is that the measure only failed by a 2:1 margin. That means, mathematically, that 33% of voters supported the measure. In a well-educated society, such as existed as recently as the 1950s, that number would be much, much smaller, no matter how charismatic or persuasive the proponents of such a measure. Me, I choose to oppose any such measure, and those who try to push them. Codifying that sort of move places the United States on the path to theocracy.
And theocracy is against my religion.
*poof*
Here's the interesting bit of the initiative:
Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
Am I the only person who sees the holes in this language? Hmm...apparently not, since it was voted down by the aforementioned 2:1 margin.
The way that bit of legalistic language is crafted, it would provide someone with an affirmative defense for any real or perceived infraction of law. All they would have to say is "it's against my religion". And it would, as written, cover anything and everything conceivable, from jaywalking to paying taxes to capital murder. Imagine, as one particularly pithy comment on a forum read, the consternation and frustration of a judge..."Your Honor, my religion compelled me to shoot Snooki." If this had passed, the shooter would have walked free, pausing only long enough to polish their halo.
Time for my take on the matter. It's really very simple. The First Amendment's "establishment" clause is there for a reason, and thinly-veiled attempts at making an end run around it are doomed to fail. I hope they are, at least. I, for one, have no desire to live in Margaret Atwood's "Republic of Gilead", and that seems to be the direction certain elements are attempting to push this nation. In my youth, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That oath didn't give me any right to pick or choose which parts of the Constitution I upheld, as if it were an à la carte menu. It's all or nothing. And I choose to support all of it. That, by definition, means I stand against any who would see the Constitution undermined in any way.
I think what really disturbs me most, though, is that the measure only failed by a 2:1 margin. That means, mathematically, that 33% of voters supported the measure. In a well-educated society, such as existed as recently as the 1950s, that number would be much, much smaller, no matter how charismatic or persuasive the proponents of such a measure. Me, I choose to oppose any such measure, and those who try to push them. Codifying that sort of move places the United States on the path to theocracy.
And theocracy is against my religion.
*poof*