The elephant in the room, religious freedom has gone too far...

[Humanist_Activist]

Honestly, the more I read about RFRAs, all of them from the Federal to the several state versions, to the latest, Indiana's, and the controversy that one is sowing, I feel that they were or are unnecessary and only serve to restore, not freedom, but privilege. Indeed, a lot of the "freedom" here is to exempt religious organizations from local zoning laws, and other "obtrusive" government interference.

The question is, if a church can become exempt from a city not allowing them to expand due to concerns about traffic or safety in the neighborhood, why can't the Freemason's do the same? Or any other secular club, or other non-profit? What give religious organizations the edge? Why should they be treated any different?

In addition, on top of this, especially with Indiana's law, which expands this privilege to individuals, why are religious beliefs put on a pedestal? Why can't I discriminate due to my sincere secular beliefs, whatever they are?

To be honest, I hope the rash actions of Indiana's legislature and governor throws a much needed light on all states and the Federal government's template for Indiana's law. Religion should not be given such a privileged place in our society.

[Takket]

1. these laws are unconstitutional

both from the standpoint of those who want to exercise the right not having equal protection (a Christian can refuse a homosexual, but an atheist cannot refuse a Christian. This is not equal) and those who are legally targeted by the law not having equal protection.

The lawsuits need to begin so SCOTUS can eventually, a year or two down the road, kill these laws.

[spanone]

3. they will be challenged and overruled

[OKNancy]

4. +1

thanks... a clear and concise reading

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Of course they are, but the courts haven't seen them that way, they are an establishment of...

religion over non-religion, and hence a violation of the establishment clause, but so far, not much luck in the judiciary.

[stone space]

2. It's not about religious freedom. That's just the Orwellian right wing frame for it.

It's the same thing they did with DOMA, calling a piece of legislation that attacks marriages the Defense of Marriage Act.

[TheDebbieDee]

5. I'm starting to understand WHY, throughout history, certain governments

have taken oppressive steps to rid their culture of religious influences....these groups push and push and push. But when you start to push back, they claim you are persecuting them and working for the benefit of EVIL.

Religions as a whole, in any culture, seem to exist in one of two phase: "persecute" those that aren't one of us or "be persecuted" by those who are not of us.

I'm becoming completely fed up with ALL religions and their customs and superstitions........

I'm not condoning persecuting the religious.......but I really understand why it has happened.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. At this point, I'd be satisfied with any level of government treating the religious and...

non-religious equally, but they don't, and this is a bipartisan problem.

Whether its a RFRA-like bill, an Office of faith based initiatives(or whatever its called now), tax exemption for churches that exempts them from oversight rules, or even opening the House and Senate with a prayer, its either a problem that long predates the modern era, or an issue that had the approval or start under a Democratic president, thanks Bill Clinton.

[longship]

6. The editorial cartoonists are all over this issue.

Admittedly, some are not current, but some things never change.

[B Calm]

9. Ignoring the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution, yes it has gone too far!

[Humanist_Activist]

12. I would argue that RFRA like bills violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Huh? Can you parse this for me?

Or use complete sentences at least?

Also, considering that the recent passage of Indiana's RFRA bill, I would say that opens the door to a larger discussion about these bills in general.