Redefining religious freedom as religious privilege

[guillaumeb]

from the article:

The First Amendment Defense Act. It’s a name that Big Brother would be proud of, seemingly plucked from the bowels of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984.”
The Senate bill is not the bulwark its name suggests but the latest salvo in the ongoing attempt to redefine religious freedom as religious privilege. It does nothing to defend the First Amendment; in fact, it violates it.....

It might seem odd for a constitutional attorney to point out that, other than the freedom of thought, all our rights can and should be curtailed in certain circumstances. But it’s true. Even the free exercise of religion can be limited. Look closely at the language and the amendment makes this clear. The free exercise clause prevents the government from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion; it does not prevent the government from regulating conduct that might be religiously motivated.

And this, in my view, is the crux of the argument:

For believers, this means that your right to believe cannot be impinged in any way, but your right to act on those beliefs can.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2018/04/23/redefining-religious-freedom-as-religious-privilege/

[yallerdawg]

1. Jefferson makes it clear:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

[Lordquinton]

2. Absolutely

We should not be enshrining some extreme religious beliefs as law, that would be a few senators protecting their privilege with law, and a violation of the first amendment.

This falls under "Bad News" no?

[guillaumeb]

3. It is terrible news.