The Little Sisters of the Poor Case Isn't About Contraception. It's About When the.....

reason.com ^ | March 23, 2016 | Stephanie Slade|

[Morgana]

FULL TITLE: The Little Sisters of the Poor Case Isn't About Contraception. It's About When the Government Can Force You to Violate Your Conscience.

The real issue is more foundational, however: When an American says a law or regulation infringes on his conscience, under what circumstances should he be exempted from it, and under what circumstances should he be forced to comply anyway?

It's a tricky question to which there isn't a fully established answer (though I've ruminated on the topic before). As Justice Stephen Breyer put it today, "I'm [still] trying to find the distinction between those things we do require people to do despite their religious objections and those we don't."

Under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, disputes like this must be adjudicated using a two-part test—but I've found it easier to think of it as actually involving three distinct questions:

1. Does the law "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion? 2. Does the law further a "compelling government interest"? 3. Does the law use the "least restrictive means" to further the compelling interest?

[Salvation]

[Talisker]

As Justice Stephen Breyer put it today, "I'm [still] trying to find the distinction between those things we do require people to do despite their religious objections and those we don't."

Well Justice Breyer, if you accept the idea of ANY limitations to government power based on religious objections AT ALL, then the most basic application of that limitation would of necessity be not being able to force people to take part in the killing of little babies.

It just doesn't get more basic than that. So really, you're not saying you can't find a limit - you're saying you don't want to accept that ANY limit CAN exist.

Which, of course, is the position of a slave owner.

[Ransomed]

It’s always been a wink and nudge. It relies on generally good folks being a majority. Some religious practices and beliefs good folks can’t tolerate, but how do you quantify it? So they didn’t, or couldn’t. If only 50-60% of people actually vote who are able to in the best most democratic nation that has ever existed that we know of, and the legal murder of unborn people has been legal for 40+ years, are the majority good folks?

Freegards

[Ray76]

Well done.

[Lorianne]

It’s About When the Government Can Force You to Violate Your Conscience.

Exactly. Czech dissident and later President Vaclav Havel wrote extensively on this subject. And of course he was criticizing a communist regime ... we are becoming no better.