The War on Religion
You know the US is in the grip of a war on religion, right? Sure. That’s why there are all these religious exemptions cluttering up the place.
Alabama exempts church day care programs from state licensing requirements, which were tightened after almost a dozen children died in licensed and unlicensed day care centers in the state in two years.
Well that’s good thinking. State licensing requirements were tightened presumably to improve the safety of day care centers – but church day care programs are exempt. On what grounds? Because if children in those programs crack their skulls on the concrete under the swing set, they’ll go to heaven so it’s okay? Because the church needs the money? What?
In recent years, many politicians and commentators have cited what they consider a nationwide “war on religion” that exposes religious organizations to hostility and discrimination. But such organizations — from mainline Presbyterian and Methodist churches to mosques to synagogues to Hindu temples — enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes. And the number is multiplying rapidly. Some of the exceptions have existed for much of the nation’s history, originally devised for Christian churches but expanded to other faiths as the nation has become more religiously diverse. But many have been granted in just the last 15 years — sometimes added to legislation, anonymously and with little attention, much as are the widely criticized “earmarks” benefiting other special interests.
Some legal scholars and judges see the special breaks for religious groups as a way to prevent government from infringing on those religious freedoms.“Never forget that the exercise of religion is a constitutionally protected activity,” said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has written and testified in support of greater legislative protection for religious liberty. “Regulation imposes burdens on the free exercise of religion. Exemptions lift those burdens.”
The free exercise clause has some unfortunate effects, in my view – such as zealots suing for the right to post bible verses in their offices saying homosexuality is a sin. Run-amok exemption would be another. Regulation imposes burdens on everything, which is precisely why it should be universal.
Read it all. It’s intensely irritating.
Can’t read it – it requires registration.
The link works fine for me.
OB, speaking of the War on Religion, is it still the case that atheists are exclluded from holding government posts in seven US states?
Actually, I’ve tracked that down now. Interesting.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_20_1
Is that actually on the books and has it been challenged in court? It’s one thing to be unelectable as an atheist, it’s another to be forbidden to run. Where is our Rosa Parks?
Nope GT is right (never thought I’d write that). Of the five or six most recently posted links only one let me read it in full. The first Boston one asked me to register after three pages and the others straigh away, and the NYT asked for registration immediately.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t see why I should give my personal details to the mass media.
It is interesting that Britain never had such a provision.
Although, for many years officeholding was supposedly limited to nominal CofE memebers, this was largely winked at, and the real change came with “Cathilc Emancipation” in the 1820’s.
Interestingly, the repeated non-admission of the openly atheist Chrles Bradlaugh to parliament was largely down to one obscuramtist individual (I think it was the then speaker) who insisted that Bradlaugh’s oath had to include “god”.
Everyone else was quite happy for Bradlaugh to “affirm”, especially as he kept getting re-elected!
As soon as the religious jobsworth had left office, Bradlaugh was seated as an MP, to everyone’s relief.
Somone else will have to fill in the fine details, I’m afraid….
P.S. Thanks to Chris Whiley!
“…but I don’t see why I should give my personal details to the mass media.”
And I guess some mass media see it the same way — Why should they give access to their system to unknown people? Who are not compensating them?
There’s no right or wrong here.
Sorry about the links – but I cheat and use bugmenot, so I lose track of which ones require registration – though I do try not to link to paid sites. But if you don’t want to give details (or take the time), use bugmenot.
Thanks, Don – interesting indeed. Staggering, in fact. I might have to move to Tennessee and run for office. (Urrggh.)
This is great –
‘Article 37 of Maryland’s constitution provides that “no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God”‘
Oh is that all!
Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing the new Dawkins Foundation could get involved in – a high-visibility test-case for something most of us (I suspect) didn’t even realize was limiting our freedoms?
I suppose that technically a Satanist could run for office, but not an atheist.
If I were American I’d be working up a little indignation around now.
Mind you, the article goes on to say that the laws are unenforceable. But all the same.
The religious exemptions are more worrying though: they’re passed by stealth, they’re multiplying, and they have huge effects. They’re a really horrible idea, and they’re spreading. (Props to the Times for doing the article. I’m always dissing the Times, so cred where cred is due.)
“Why should they give access to their system to unknown people? Who are not compensating them?”
Well then no-one would watch television or listen to the radio. Duh, the compensation comes from the advertising revenue, registration is just a way of maximising that revenue by selling on your details or spamming you with offers themselves. What obligation does someone have to maximise someone else’s profits for the sake of their own privacy?
Oh, and the self same newspapers give away hundreds of copies to airlines and hotels daily, isn’t that the same thing? In actual fact it’s more expensive as they’re not even being compensated for the printing costs.