3 ms·
That's not really freedom of religion then, is it? "You can be Muslim (/Sikh/Mormon/etc.), but you can't wear the clothing prescribed by your religion", a la Fr
by CrazyStat 5y ago
That's not really freedom of religion then, is it? "You can be Muslim (/Sikh/Mormon/etc.), but you can't wear the clothing prescribed by your religion", a la French secularism, is a weak accommodation that allows people to be a little different as long as they aren't too different. It is far short of actual freedom of conscience.
- rtkwe 5y agoThere are various ways around that issue; no prohibitions of purely religious activities, a clause about limiting that no exceptions to laws about health/security etc.
- salawat 5y agoSomeone inevitably becomes responsible for making that judgement call, and a record is thereby built up of the "State's interpretation of your religion" Ergo, you have freedom of whatever the State decides your religion is... which is not compatible with Separation of Church and State. These constitutional matters are so much thornier than they appear at first glance. I tell people this often.
- hash872 5y agoI mean, judges in developed countries make these kind of judgement calls all the time, probably dozens of times a year in a country the size of the US. There's tons of well-developed common law around what is a legitimate expression of religion, what isn't, etc. Easily over 30 Supreme Court cases on this over the last couple of centuries. If I assert that I have a religious exemption to stop signs, taxes, gun laws, anti-discrimination laws, securities laws, etc. etc. judges can & do 'decide [what] your religion is', as you put it. Unless you assert that literally zero laws apply to the religious, there's just no way around judges actually making these decisions
- CrazyStat 5y agoThese ways around the problem are not unlike what we have in the US right now. At that point you are far from "no religious exemptions to any laws."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]