Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing. People should be free to worship who(what) ever they wish as long as it doesn't harm others.
But let's say that my religion stated that I had to kill 5 people every day who were not of my religion. Or that my religion stated that I must infiltrate a country with others of my religion until we had enough for a good foothold for a war behind enemy lines. Or that my religion said that I must force everyone else to follow my religion too under penalty of death or slavery. Let's say that my religion says to cause harm and/or cover up when others cause harm.
In those cases, should my religion still be protected under the freedom of religion laws?
2007-12-19 11:41:49 · 5 answers · asked by Sparrow hates Yahoo Answers 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The idea is that said religion sets up a situation where one can follow the law of the land OR follow the religion. There isn't a middle ground where you can believe in your right to kill people in your religion and just not act on it because it's against the law. In that situation the person would not be practicing their religion, and thus would not have the freedom of religion.
2007-12-19 12:01:27 · update #1
Your religion might be protected, but the actions of your religion would not.
2007-12-19 11:46:14 · answer #1 · answered by amber s 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The free exercise clause does not guarantee impunity from punishment. If your religion requires you to break a law, like killing people, that practice is not protected by the First Amendment.
In Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia said that "we have never held that an individual's religious beliefs
excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate." That particular case was about the use of peyote in religious ceremonies - the same would apply to murder, or enslavement, or whatever.
2007-12-19 19:52:39 · answer #2 · answered by Soyana 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The founding documents of this country charge the state with the responsibility of protecting your right to live your live through your own volition so-long-as you do not infringe on the rights of other individuals living their lives through their own volition as well.
Killing people in compliance with any dogma would clearly violate said rights of the victims which would compel the state to intervene and apply the penalties of the law as legislated by our elected representatives.
This is a nation of laws... not a nation of men!
The founding ideals of this country would be meaningless and unenforceable without serious legal consequences for violating them.
There is no precedence for dogma of any sort trumping the law of the land per your analogy.
If you have antipathy for religion, which you seem to have [not that there's anything wrong with that], I recommend that you pursue your contentions on a more sound argument and let me take a crack at it.
thanks... I enjoyed grappling with your question!
2007-12-21 04:38:22 · answer #3 · answered by . 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What ever happened to Thou Shalt Not Kill. In my thinking any religion that does not abide by this commandment is hypocritical in the highest order. Live and let live is the order of the day and embrace all cultures and differences as unique.
2007-12-19 19:55:07 · answer #4 · answered by Jenny M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your religious BELIEFS would be protected. Freedom of religion, however, does not allow you to break laws that are not religious in nature.
The law against murder has nothing to do with religion, so it's perfectly legal to punish ANYONE who commits a murder, even if it was religiously inspired.
Richard
2007-12-19 19:46:29 · answer #5 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋