Comments on: Mandatory Insurance and the Amish

By: Vader

Vader — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:06:13 +0000

I agree that far. Eliminating religious exceptions under the current legal climate would be surrendering an island of freedom. That freedom deserves more than an island is also true, of course.

By: gst

gst — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:30:02 +0000

I don’t know, it seems pretty straight-forward to me. The question was why do we have any religious exemptions to any laws. The answer is because there’s a constitutional prohibition on laws that restrict the free exercise of religion. I take it your larger point is that any law that would restrict the free exercise of any religion is probably a law we can do without. That may be. But I don’t think that the way to get there is by eliminating religious exemptions.

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:30:54 +0000

I’ll bite. I’m in favor of ending antidiscrimination laws, and letting the chips fall where they may. Let private employers hire who they like. The ones who discriminate in hiring are shooting themselves in the foot.

I’m guessing you’d be surprised to learn that laws mandating employment discrimination, in places like South Africa under apartheid, were constantly having to prosecute employers who tried to get around the law.

The reasons why this was so are not hard to figure out. I leave it as an exercise for the student.

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:33:17 +0000

“Any law that can justifiably have a religious exemption is a law that shouldn’t exist at all. ”

So you’re either in favor of ending antidiscrimination laws, or of making the church hire Catholics and atheists as seminary teachers.

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:27:51 +0000

I think John has the better argument. But it sounds like a difference of established Constitutional law versus natural law. The former only imperfectly reflects the latter.

By: gst

gst — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:45:14 +0000

I’ve got to disagree with you there a little bit, Mansfield. Religious preferences or objections are legitimately different than other kinds of preferences or objections–they have protection in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Some non-religious preferences might be protected in other parts of the Constitution, but religion is different. Nowhere does it say that congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of your personal belief system generally.