Can All Religions Enjoy Equal Protection?

Interesting, since the the April 2002 issue of World Press Review (VOL. 49, No. 4) states that "Foreigners living in polygamy in France [do not] have the right to obtain a legal residence card... Either they must separate from their husbands and seek to live on their own, or else they run the risk of not having their residence papers renewed." If goes on to state that according to the Ministry of Interior, a foreign man who has previously married multiple wives can "maintain his marital relationship with more than one spouse and still live in France, but only one of those spouses is allowed to live in France."

I found no information on anything called a "workplace accommodation act", except in conjunction to the ADA and accommodation of people with physical disabilities.

 

Johnv, A quick Google finds the correct name of the bill which has not passed yet.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/media_center/

Re: France:

Link

You see, Baptist Believer, when push comes to shove, there really isn't any separation of church & state except when it comes to Evangelical Christians & it's going to get worse - all in the name of political correctness. The clouds are already looming on the horizon.

 

Okay, when searching for the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act", I found it. It is also supported by the following groups: American Jewish Committee, Baptist Joint Committee, Christian Legal Society, Family Research Council, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

In reading the bill as I see it, I support it, since, so long as it does not result in an undue hardship to my employer, it would allow me to do the following unpaid, without fear of retribution:

1 - leave work for Good Friday services, which are at noon at my church, and
2 - leave work for Christmas Eve, since our services are on the 24th, not the 25th.

Right now, I'm not guaranteed these allowances.

 

You're making a fundamental mistake in assuming that the French government and the American government have exactly the same views on separation of church and state. While the French talk a good game, they are not terribly consistent with religious liberty. Here's more information in case you want to learn something about the subject:

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/cusf/analysis/relfreedom.htm

http://www.telleurope.org/Stories/french.htm#France%20Religion%20Law

I'm surprised you would assume that France and the United States think the same way, especially in light of your recent comments about the French in regard to the pending war.

Nothing you posted demonstrated that anything I have said about separation of church and state is untrue. In fact, it merely points out how important it is not to favor one religion over another.

 

That's right...

Of course, SheEagle quoted someone's uninformed opinion on a message board as a legitimate source and failed to recognize that Baptists and evangelicals have been promoting this bill from the beginning. If I remember correctly, this was originally part of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was championed by Baptists and other religious groups about 10 years ago.

 

So, Baptist Believer, are you as a Baptist also championing this bill???

BTW, I'm not equating the US with France. How you could pretzelize my comments to equate that is a wonder.

 

Yes. Is there a problem?

Because you were quoting a problem with "separation of church and state" in France and then telling me that the principle must not be valid in this country because the French are making such a mess of it.

 

Baptist Believer, let me see if I get this straight....

1) You believe in the WALL of separation of church & state.

2) You support a Federal Government Workplace Religious Freedom Act. (which will open up a can of worms - but that's another thread)

3) But you don't support an Amendment to Keep Under God in the Pledge or posting the 10 Commandments in Courthouses.

Seems contradictory. Guess it depends on the issue?

 

I think that a fair number of faithful Baptists would agree in those three points.

You do realize, don't you, that you're required as a Baptist to support Separation of Church and State??

 

Yes.

Yes. I don't think it will "open up a can of worms" at all. There are a lot of alarmists out there who probably don't really understand separation of church and state who don't like the idea of Muslims and Christians having equal treatment under the law.

Regarding the pledge, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary -- the pledge is not illegal, only the promotion of reciting the pledge by agents of the government (the schools and such) is illegal.

Regarding the Ten Commandments, the government has no business telling citizens to worship the God of the Jews, avoid making and worshiping graven images, and taking the name of the LORD in vain.

Not at all. It is extremely consistent. If you don't understand why it is consistent, you've never understood my position.

 

I'll keep it short and sweet.... Man can only enjoy full freedom and love through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.
KNOW JESUS, KNOW PEACE.
NO JESUS, NO PEACE.

Simple as I can put it. No other religeon in the world can offer what my Jesus can....and by the way, He's not a religeon...He's a savior!!!
PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME !!!!!

 

Why else did Utah have to make polygamy illegal to gain state status if not for Protestant Christian morality.
Because the Federal Government was unwilling to recognize polygamy. The first amendment allows for religious liberty, but limits it to within legal boundaries. Polygamy was not legal.

It wasn't until 1947 that the First Amendment began to be applied to state and local governments.
Not true. All state and local laws must adhere to constitutional standards. A state or city may not pass a law that is contrary to the Constitution. Several states and colonies had sState run churches. But when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it outlawed all government-run churches, even those at the state level. That was 1791.

 

Polygamy wasn't even a major issue until the mid 1800's. By then, US law had accepted that marrieage consisted of one person to one other person of the opposite sex. Contrary to belief, however, polygamy was not accepted by the LDS church until 1852, and was officially abandoned in 1890, though abandoned in practice long before. The LDS Church saw it as a way to insure an increase in the LDS population. But few LDS men accepted the practice, and those who did usually had a maximum of two wives (there are some ultrachristian websites that talk about the practice being "epidemic" which simply wasn't the case). In short, polygamy was a failure.

In 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories, disincorporated the Mormon Church, and restricted the church's ownership of property. In 1879, the Supreme Court, upheld the Morrill Act: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."


Polygamy was made illegal because the Federal Government did not feel it was in the best interest of the US. The Supreme Court regognized the first amendment right to freedom of religion, citing that limiting a societal practice does not interfere with freedom of religion.

While the "separation of church and state" did not appear in legal print until the mid-1900's, the concept of congress making "no law respecting an establishment of religion", especially in the state and local level, was alive and well.

 

Polygamy was illegal because of the Judeo-Christian notion of monogamy. There! *whew*

It shouldn't have been illegal, nor should it be today. There is no non-religious basis for keeping it illegal. If anything, its beiong illegal could prove that there is no religious equality - polygamy being legal doesn't limit Christians in any way, yet it's illegality could be said to limit Mormons.

I'm speaking in hypotheticals, because I haven't read anything that implies polygamy is essential to the Mormon faith, and don't know enough about it to make an un-researched statement about it being essential.

But any of our laws that cannot be substantiated outside of religious reasoning should be nixed anyway.

 

Proof positive that the First Amendment was intended only to protect true religion.

Polygamy wasn't seen as a religion issue, it was seen as a societal issue. Since marriage is a civil contract that the law must enforce, the law has a right to decide if plural marriage contracts are within the scope of enforceability. It has decided they are not. Another example of an unenforceable contract is a non-compete agreement. Unless it is specific to length and geography, it is unenforceable.

Atheists only take one spouse. Catholics take only one spouse. Buddhists and Shintos take only one spouse. Jews take only one spouse. The fact that NT views on monogamy are inline with societal norms is a separate issue from that of Amendment I. Amendment I also made state run churches illegal, which existed prior to 1791.

Murder is also illegal, but that, too, is a societal issue more than a religious issue. Christianity allows the death penalty, but it is illegal in some states, being a societal issue. Drunkenness is against Christianity, but is not illegal (only regulated). In fact, the prohibition amendment was repealed almost as fast as it was enacted.

 

I just can't see polygamy ever working - two women in control of your life?! - who would ever sgree to that!

 

Oh, so technical - that would be "polygyny." Polygamy can be multiple men or women.