Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Separation vs. accommodation (0+ / 0-)

    It's easy to agree that church and state are to be separated. But against Stevens' view is the simple point that the establishment clause itself basically prohibits the institution of a state religion, but does not require entire indifference to the wish of citizens to practice religion. There is neutrality that is evenhanded, and neutrality that is harmful.

    To illustrate: if the government is evenly neutral with regard  to all particular religions, then a Quaker, a Jew, or any other religionist may be accommodated in a claim of conscientious objection to military service. If government is required to be absolutely indifferent to religion simply, then it must refuse such a request. On this view, neutrality becomes positively harmful to religion. I doubt this is either what the establishment clause was meant to do, or that it needs to be so interpreted.

    •  Or give the same right to refuse service (0+ / 0-)

      to everyone.  Why should the religious be exempt and the conscientious objector not?

      If you didn't care what happened to me, and I didn't care for you, we would zig zag our way through the boredom and pain, occasionally glancing up through the rain, wondering which of the buggers to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing. R. Waters

      by No Exit on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 05:36:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site