The Deeply Troubling Federal Report Targeting Religious Freedom

The Washington Post ^ | 9/16/16 | Charles C. Haynes

[marshmallow]

Nearly 225 years after the ratification of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the cause of conscience protected by the principles of “no establishment” and “free exercise” may be losing support in the minds and hearts of the American people.

Appeals by religious individuals and groups for exemption from government laws and regulations that substantially burden religious practice are increasingly unpopular and controversial. So much so that many in the media have taken to using scare quotes, transforming religious freedom into “religious freedom.”

Now the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appears to be recommending that we make it official: Our first freedom is first no more.

According to a commission report released Sept. 7, “civil rights protections ensuring nondiscrimination, as embodied in the Constitution, laws, and policies, are of preeminent importance in American jurisprudence.”

If we accept this assertion, it means that conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination principles are resolved by denying accommodation for religious conscience — except perhaps in very rare and narrow circumstances.

According to the findings of the commission:

“Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon those civil rights.”

The findings and recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights — an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency — carry weight with government officials responsible for national civil rights policy and enforcement.

Robust protection for civil rights is, of course, essential in a democratic society. But so is protection for liberty of conscience. Despite dark chapters of religious discrimination, the United States has a long and honorable history of taking claims of conscience seriously. From conscientious objection to war to religious accommodations in the workplace, the American experiment in religious freedom seeks......

[Fungi]

“an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency — carry weight with government officials responsible for national civil rights policy and enforcement.” Hogwash!!! Pure unadulterated crap. An appointed, non-elected agency should not have any power whatsoever. Tyranny, pure and simple.

[SkyPilot]

We are in the grip of incredible evil, and it will only get worse. The tyrannical dystopia that was the stuff of horror movies is coming.

But there is hope.

"Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."

Luke 21:36

[Steely Tom]

I'm trying to find the First Amendment language about "Appealing for exemption from government laws and regulations that substantially burden religious practice."

So far my search has turned up nothing, even though the Amendment contains only 45 words. Somehow I'm missing it just the same.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

I think it’s about time somebody stands up and says...YOU CAN’T TAKE AWAY THE BILL OF RIGHTS without it being over somebodies dead body...
just saying...rhethorically of course...wink wink..
Freegards
LEX

[Salvation]

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Aw bullcrap. What's the plan on how they're gonna go about enforcing their little edict. Freaking pinheads.

 

 

[heye2monn]

Unfortunately neither Trump, Clinton nor Gary Johnson care or say much about religious freedom. Most voters, increasingly secular and apathetic, don’t care much either. They just want free stuff and marijuana.

[Salvation]

**They just want free stuff and marijuana.**

Sad, but that’s not what government is for.

[tbw2]

Leftist authoritarians are in open war against freedom of speech, demanding the abandonment of entire words and works because they don’t like it.
It is fascism in the name of feelings.

[MarkL]

What's the plan on how they're gonna go about enforcing their little edict. Freaking pinheads.

Unfortunately, they've already begun doing it. The bakery case, I believe in CO. And the cherry on top is the court ordered Cuba/Red China/Nork use of "re-education!"

Mark

[fwdude]

This is insane and unlawful. “Sexual orientation” isn’t even mentioned in federal non-discrimination laws.