Religion is now the enemy of British government
Posted: May 2nd, 2010, 6:20 pm
Two cases in the British news this weekend. One is the arrest of a preacher who quietly answered a question of someone while street preaching. The preacher said, in a response to a question whether homosexuality is sinful, that the Bible does state that same-sex relationships are sinful as are adultery and drunkenness. The person reported the comment to a police officer and the preacher was arrested and spent 7 hours in jail for a criminal violation of the British law against hate speech. Another case actually ruled on in court involved a fired Christian counsellor who refused to counsel a gay couple in couples therapy. They sued, he maintained that his Christian faith forbad him from counseling the couple, and the British court specifically stated that religious faith cannot be used as a defense at law in the face of the violation of the couples' civil rights to be gay and have counseling.
Alabama passed its own version of the Religious Freedom Amendment Act and made it an amendment to our state constitution. It reads, in pertinent part,
My question to you is where your state stands. How far do you think courts will be willing to push their thumbs on the government's side of the scale to find the "governmental interest" compelling enough to burden one's religious freedoms?
This is my problem with such balancing tests that have overrun most fundamental notions of liberty in the past 75 years --- the government ultimately wins in almost every single case. Should we not have an absolute ban on governmental action that burdens one's right to exercise honestly held religious beliefs that are proved to be honestly held by evidence such as church attendance and religious practice?? Should we not limit the governmental interest to prevention of homicides and imminent bodily injury or property damage only??
I'm interested in your thoughts.
Alabama passed its own version of the Religious Freedom Amendment Act and made it an amendment to our state constitution. It reads, in pertinent part,
SECTION V. (a) Government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Government may burden a person's freedom of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) A person whose religious freedom has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.
My question to you is where your state stands. How far do you think courts will be willing to push their thumbs on the government's side of the scale to find the "governmental interest" compelling enough to burden one's religious freedoms?
This is my problem with such balancing tests that have overrun most fundamental notions of liberty in the past 75 years --- the government ultimately wins in almost every single case. Should we not have an absolute ban on governmental action that burdens one's right to exercise honestly held religious beliefs that are proved to be honestly held by evidence such as church attendance and religious practice?? Should we not limit the governmental interest to prevention of homicides and imminent bodily injury or property damage only??
I'm interested in your thoughts.