DOJ lays out Trump admin’s guidelines for religious liberties protections

The Washington Times ^ | October 6, 2017c | Andrea Noble

[be-baw]

The Justice Department issued legal guidance across the federal government Friday that will shape how the Trump administration interprets religious liberties protections, interpretations expected to come into play in a number of ongoing lawsuits.

The memo, issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, does not resolve any specific ongoing litigation, but it will serve as a baseline for how the Justice Department will interpret current federal laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Among 20 principles outlined in the memo, the Justice Department finds that RFRA protections extend not just to individuals but also to organizations, associations and at least some for-profit companies and that the government is not permitted to “second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.”

As an example, the memo states that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot second-guess “the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization’s religious precepts.”

The DOJ memo was issued the same day that the Trump administration announced it would allow employers to claim religious or moral objections in order to be exempt from providing birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.

[Grampa Dave]

Good news.

Now starting the countdown to when the Lynching of Sessions will start on FR!

[Alberta's Child]

This is great news, and it actually reinforces a barrier between church and state that diminishes the state's power considerably.

What this directive says is that it's up to the religious organization -- not the state -- to determine its own religious doctrines and their applicability to civil authority.

In other words ... the state leaves the church alone unless there is a serious, compelling reason not to.

[existtoexcel]

Sharia in the ‘unqualified for protection’ category? Yep, wishful.

[wtd]

A good start would be to define “religion” in the legal sense by banning practice of creed from any affiliation with politics.

[achilles2000]

Your post is intellectually incoherent.

[rrrod]

Om...Sessions is a worthless POS.....worst AG in history

[wtd]

achilles2000 wrote: "Your post is intellectually incoherent."

Agree, I wasn't very clear in expressing what I wanted to state.

Simply, "Religion and Politics cannot mix."

A precise legal definition of the term "religion" must be devised to eliminate the challenges posed by Islam/Sharia which is primarily political.

The problem with all Western laws regarding ‘freedom of religion’ is that they are derived from a Christian understanding of what a religion is. Islam is a juridical imperialist utopian nightmare…tyrannical and murderous. To the extent that a religion demands the submission of its non-adherents to its dictates, or advocates violence or other activities contrary to the laws of a free society, it is not to be viewed as a religion. Freedom in all free societies is always limited to freedom to do those things that don’t impinge on the rights and freedoms of others.

It is surprising how much of the Islamic doctrine (found in three texts: Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (stories and anecdotes about Mohammed)—the Islamic Trilogy) is political.

Approximately 67% of the Meccan Koran and 51% of the Medinan Koran is political. About 75% of the Sira is about what was done to the kafir. Roughly 20% of the Hadith is about jihad, a political act. Even the Islamic concept of Hell is political, not religious.

[Grampa Dave]

“Om...Sessions is a worthless POS.....worst AG in history!

Compared to Killer Jake Reno, who wiped out an entire group of women and children because they were the wrong religion?

Compared to Holder, we have no idea how many innocent Americans died do to his term?

Compared to Grannie Lynch who met with Bill Clinton to help Hill win?

[achilles2000]

Every worldview (a religion is just a worldview) has a value theory that inevitably sets boundaries on what a civil government can legitimately do and that specifies the source of law. Consequently, all worldviews, including the religion of secularism (see, e.g., the first Humanist Manifesto and the USSC’s decision in Seeger), are “political”. The only real question is which is right. There is no escaping that question. Neither secularism nor any other worldview is “neutral”.

[wtd]

Neutral as a unicorn? Moral equivalence defense seeking ‘neutral’ ‘worldviews’ will not wash. Other “worldviews” (as you put it) adopt “The Golden Rule”...Islam does not now, never has and never will adopt “The Golden Rule” as it contradicts doctrine and is considered jahiliyya.
Hence the quiet application of the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights”
https://www.politicalislam.com/cairo-human-rights/

within United Nations applies across the board in issues involving the 57 predominantly Islamic nations - essentially negating the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which applies to all other nations.

Western logic is based on the “Law of Contradiction”. If two things contradict, then at least one of them is false.

Islamic logic is dualistic; two statements or ideas can contradict each other and both remain true. Since the Qu’ran is considered by muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, all contradicting verses are sacred and true. The later verse is ‘better’ but the earlier verse cannot be wrong, since Allah is perfect. Circumstances dictate which verse applies. Dualistic systms can only be measured by statistics. Hence my reference to Dr. Bill Warner’s excellent series on Statistical Islam.
Dualistic logic is unique to Islam providing significant advantage as it confounds all Western logic.

[achilles2000]

Odd reply. The problem with Islam is far deeper than the Golden Rule or any nonsense from the UN. As I said, every worldview is “political”. I didn’t say that they are all somehow morally equivalent. Claiming some worldview is “neutral”, e.g. secularism, as many claim, is a dodge. At some point people have to admit that “x is right” and “y is wrong”. Islam is evil.

[wtd]

I believe we agree more than disagree on the basics. The primary issue I have is with the term “neutral” - there is no middle ground with Islam (we agree). The UN issue deals with the “x is right” and “y is wrong” dilemma you mention. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights explicitly trumps the “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Hence the nullification of both “neutral” and “x vs. y” paradigm.
Absolutely - Islam is evil - no question.