Government respects freedom of religion. Just not yours.
So let me see if I've got this straight.
Freedom of religion stops the government from interfering with religious organizations, more or less. This is clearly a good and essential thing but how far should it go? What laws should religions be exempt from? Should "religious freedom" cover questionable or illegal treatment of employees? Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights
The government holds religious organizations to some laws but not others. Where's the line between protected activities and those subject to the law? Where should the line be? Is it a spiritual versus temporal division, or something else?
If religions get broad leeway some people think they're "getting away with something" and try to limit those freedoms. What seems to happen then is that marginalized religions get scrutinized, can't afford the legal or bureaucratic battles and lose their supposed freedoms, while the major relgions never even get challenged. As a member of a tiny religion, that seems like a lose to me. Wouldn't it be better to have a clearer idea of what's protected, something people more or less agree on, so that there's less temptation to abuse religious freedom and less (counterproductive) desire to restrict it?
Freedom of religion also makes the government respect our right to practice our faith, if it's a "real" one anyway. On the other hand if you're a soldier killed in action you don't get on your hometown war hero memorial. At least, not if you were Wiccan and your widow insists on having the symbol of your faith next to your name like everyone else gets. Fallen Soldier Gets a Bronze Star but No Pagan Star - "...the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion -- a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle -- to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers."
It's your own fault for being Wiccan, though. You should've picked a "real" religion: "The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half of are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists."
Is it better or worse to know that it's mostly the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs picking on you? "Federal courts have recognized Wicca as a religion since 1986. Prisons across the country treat it as a legitimate faith, as do the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. military, which allows Wiccan ceremonies on its bases."
So I guess freedom of religious organizations trumps government, which trumps individual freedom of religion. (Also note tax revenue flows from individuals to the government, and now on to religions, via the tithe by proxy "faith-based initiative" system.)
Oh right, I forgot, we have a Republican administration. Nevermind, it all makes sense now. Religious organizations are a combination of big business and God; there's no way the GOP could resist kneeling before that golden idol.
Freedom of religion stops the government from interfering with religious organizations, more or less. This is clearly a good and essential thing but how far should it go? What laws should religions be exempt from? Should "religious freedom" cover questionable or illegal treatment of employees? Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights
The government holds religious organizations to some laws but not others. Where's the line between protected activities and those subject to the law? Where should the line be? Is it a spiritual versus temporal division, or something else?
If religions get broad leeway some people think they're "getting away with something" and try to limit those freedoms. What seems to happen then is that marginalized religions get scrutinized, can't afford the legal or bureaucratic battles and lose their supposed freedoms, while the major relgions never even get challenged. As a member of a tiny religion, that seems like a lose to me. Wouldn't it be better to have a clearer idea of what's protected, something people more or less agree on, so that there's less temptation to abuse religious freedom and less (counterproductive) desire to restrict it?
Freedom of religion also makes the government respect our right to practice our faith, if it's a "real" one anyway. On the other hand if you're a soldier killed in action you don't get on your hometown war hero memorial. At least, not if you were Wiccan and your widow insists on having the symbol of your faith next to your name like everyone else gets. Fallen Soldier Gets a Bronze Star but No Pagan Star - "...the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion -- a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle -- to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers."
It's your own fault for being Wiccan, though. You should've picked a "real" religion: "The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half of are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists."
Is it better or worse to know that it's mostly the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs picking on you? "Federal courts have recognized Wicca as a religion since 1986. Prisons across the country treat it as a legitimate faith, as do the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. military, which allows Wiccan ceremonies on its bases."
So I guess freedom of religious organizations trumps government, which trumps individual freedom of religion. (Also note tax revenue flows from individuals to the government, and now on to religions, via the tithe by proxy "faith-based initiative" system.)
Oh right, I forgot, we have a Republican administration. Nevermind, it all makes sense now. Religious organizations are a combination of big business and God; there's no way the GOP could resist kneeling before that golden idol.