Religious Freedom and the Government

So, parents can deny children life-saving treatments as long as they've sufficiently brainwashed the kid in advance so that junior thinks it's the right thing to do?

@Taoist: Well, they've still had to fight it in court. And so far they've also been teens, not younger kids.

Would it be fair to state that the right to self-determination has been upheld in those cases, rather than the right to religious freedom? Of course did their religion inform their choices but it was the right to make that choice that was at stake.

@Lich: Don't think so, since I don't know of any cases where non-religious teens got the exemption.

If I were a very stupid person, I would console myself of the grief from the excess avoidable deaths caused by religious beliefs by telling myself that by the logic of the Darwin Awards, society benefits when someone dies because they refuse blood transfusions.

Of course, that kind of thinking is made by twisting one's morality, empathy and ideas about the value of the individual to the society around a rather twisted view of the good of the society; so I guess if one views society as something that can benefit from needlessly losing members, it's easy to think of the logic of the Darwin Awards as an argument against prohibiting religious people from refusing treatment.

Is that all really just a single sentence? And to think that I've passed (with good grades) two Written English courses (which were about writing proper, academical English) in the University...

Anyway, as you can tell if you defeated the unintelligibility of the sentence up there, I would not allow religious beliefs to make one exempt from the law, and in case of children trying to refuse necessary treatment, I wouldn't grant them or their parents the final say.

The law on this matter in the United States, broadly speaking, is the Employment Division v. Smith rule. Essentially, the rule is that if a state law is intended to impede one religion over another, it's not on, but a law of general applicability is valid even if it's against your religion.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. That only applies to state laws, and only in some states. The federal government, by contrast, must satisfy strict scrutiny, which means that any violation of your right to practice your religion must be narrowly-tailored to achieve a compelling government interest; in plain English, they need a really good reason, and even then, they need to restrict your freedom as little as possible. Some states have also adopted this standard. (However, this rule is not Constitutional, but statutory; it's based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Congress may choose to repeal it or create an exception at any time, in which case the rule defaults back to Smith.)

edited 1st Feb '12 6:44:36 AM by Ramidel

But the general applicability in the case of medicine is, for a large part, consent-based. There's no law that punishes you for for refusing a treatment in a general setting.

I do think that when it comes to saving a life, there needs to be more insistence, but there needs to be some boundaries.

The benchmark test that US courts use is the test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Legislation concerning religion must have a secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religious practice, and it must not result in "excessive entanglement" with religion.

So there may be laws that do adversely affect some religious practices, but not as a primary effect, and as long as they also have a secular, rather than religious purpose, they don't conflict with the establishment clause.

Well, I was gonna respond in detail to the OP, but it would have been what Radical Taoist said, in essence, so I guess not.

Well, speaking as an American, I think that one should have freedom of conscience as far as possible, so long as one does not unduly interfere with the rights of others, or pose a threat to the public order. Hence, say, the government should not force a private hospital or private individuals to provide contraceptives or have it in their health plan (in the same way you have the right to a free press, but not the right to have a newsagent that provides you with a newspaper of your choice. Likewise, you may have the right to choose how or whether you have kids, but you do not have the right to have every establishment provide you with contraceptives, pharmacies and hospitals included.). Likewise, so long as it does not lead to the actual death or severe impairment of the child, one should be allowed to raise one's children according to one's conscience.

edited 1st Feb '12 7:05:37 PM by Cojuanco

My atheism brings all the boys to the yard.

I'll admit my personal leanings on this. I listen to Greydon Square, read Richard Dawkins, and follow PZ Myers' blog. I'm all for religious freedom in that you've permission to believe what you wish and the criminalization or disenfranchising of any religious faith isn't cool. But when it comes down to it, I don't feel that belonging to a religion should grant any freedoms to a person that they wouldn't get from belonging to a sci-fi fandom. To matters of law and character judgment, someone being a Christian matters about as much as someone being a Browncoat.

edited 1st Feb '12 7:15:02 PM by RadicalTaoist

@Taoist,

While I agree with that sentiment (as a theistic agnostic), it's very much so at the top of the "easier said than done" list.

OK now I'm curious as to what the rest of your cut off post said.

Edit: wow, how did you manage to hide the edit time?

EDIT EDIT: All right this is freaking weird, when I refresh the page sometimes the latter half of the last sentence in that post disappears.

edited 1st Feb '12 7:30:04 PM by RadicalTaoist

'Tis a mystery for the ages.

If your sci-fi fandomness states that a given practice goes against your conscience, then the government has no business forcing you to do it, so long as it does not tend to treason or interfere unjustly with the rights of others.

Oh, and because I didn't address it, I don't really care if you want private healthcare to not have to provide contraceptives if they don't want to, because if I were in charge there wouldn't be private healthcare anymore (or at least, as is relevant to this issue), and public healthcare damn well would be providing contraceptives.

So, yeah, you can have that. It's not exactly useful, insofar as I care, but, whatever.

If your X states that a given practice goes against your conscience, then the government has no business forcing you to do it, so long as it does not tend to treason or interfere unjustly with the rights of others. X can be anything.

Mm. I personally am not fond of broadening conscientious objection like that. It devalues the concept.

I'm not sure what we'd do otherwise to attempt to rid ourselves of the societal bias towards institutionalized religious privilege, however.

I'm okay with that broadening.

Well, I only broadened it for the sake of argument. Realistically, I don't care if paying taxes and obeying environmental regulations on dumping mercury in rivers are against your conscience, you still gotta obey the laws.

As for fixing that societal bias, exposure and open communication do wonders. I honestly don't expect most mainstream religions to remain in practice by majorities anywhere after another four generations of Internet-literate people.

How so? It's not like religions are anti-tech.

Mm. I think the process is going to be more gradual than that, Taoist.

After all, the printing press made religion more prominent, rather than weakening it, and that's the absolute closest historical analogue we have to the internet singularity, insofar as I know. I wouldn't make sweeping predictions like that. We already have the basic sociological postulate that religiosity (which is not the same thing as religious belief in the most basic sense) declines over time, as a generality, so long as technology continually advances. Thinking that it will increase drastically because we have new technology is a... very untenable proposal.

@abstractematics: Depends on the religion. Some very much are anti-tech, though most of those are more against modernization than technology itself (such as the various Mennonite sects).

So I assume you also believe in following bad laws as well?

@Deboss: really man?