4 ms·

I'm not SA but have tried educating myself. In terms of this ban within the context of the USA, I think it could be argued that there is 1A protection of religi

I'm not SA but have tried educating myself. In terms of this ban within the context of the USA, I think it could be argued that there is 1A protection of religious freedom since the caste system is defined in the Varnas of Hindu texts. This conflict with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would probably need to be hashed out in courts.

gnicholas 3y ago
I would be surprised if a freedom of religion challenge could succeed here, since that would open the door to people discriminating on any number of things, based on religious views. Regardless, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...
- hervature 3y ago
  > Regardless, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution: ... Entirely correct. I just meant that as a catchall for the various actual legal protections that are meant to encapsulate that ideal.
gregjor 3y ago
The Bible describes slavery and has rules around how to treat slaves. But Christians cannot keep slaves based on beliefs derived from ancient texts. The Constitution forbids the government establishing or promoting a specific religion, and civil rights laws protect people from discrimination based on their faith. But those laws don’t allow religious people or organizations to operate outside the law. Americans can believe whatever they want and worship in their own way. They cannot mistreat other people because their religious tradition tells them to.
- hervature 3y ago
  I don't think any of your comments here help elucidate anything. Just because the Bible talks about slaves, it does not codify that every descendant of a slave is a slave. At least, not to my knowledge. Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA. The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws. The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    > Just because the Bible talks about slaves, it does not codify that every descendant of a slave is a slave. The traditions and rules in the Bible are somewhat more complicated than "every descendant of a slave is a slave," because the Bible (like Greek and Roman law) recognized different kinds of slaves, with different rights. As to your comment, see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:1-36. For example: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's..." > Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA. The Constitution only prohibits the government establishing a state religion, or favoring any specific religion, as I stated in my original comment. It does not get into specifics like religious customs that conflict with secular laws. However US courts only recognize the secular laws of the US; Sharia, the Bible, Catholic Canon Law have no standing or force in US courts. The argument that the Hindu holy texts predate the US Constitution and American laws means nothing in US courts. > The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws. Not sure what that means or what you refer to. The ruling regarding kirpans has to do with carrying a (ceremonial) knife into a Federal workplace. The decision to allow kirpans hinged on the same agency allowing other sharper and longer knives under their policy, not really a question of freedom of religion. In any case the issue was not can someone practice the Sikh faith in the US, but can someone carry a potential weapon into a workplace (or on a plane, or on a campus) just because their religion calls for carrying such a potential weapon. The answer is "it depends." If someone's religion says they have to carry a sharpened scimitar or a Glock 9mm they aren't going to get the same kind of allowance. > The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges. At issue was an IRS workplace security policy, not a law enacted by Congress. But I get your point.

gnicholas 3y ago

I would be surprised if a freedom of religion challenge could succeed here, since that would open the door to people discriminating on any number of things, based on religious views. Regardless, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...

hervature 3y ago
> Regardless, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution: ... Entirely correct. I just meant that as a catchall for the various actual legal protections that are meant to encapsulate that ideal.

gregjor 3y ago

The Bible describes slavery and has rules around how to treat slaves. But Christians cannot keep slaves based on beliefs derived from ancient texts. The Constitution forbids the government establishing or promoting a specific religion, and civil rights laws protect people from discrimination based on their faith. But those laws don’t allow religious people or organizations to operate outside the law. Americans can believe whatever they want and worship in their own way. They cannot mistreat other people because their religious tradition tells them to.

hervature 3y ago
I don't think any of your comments here help elucidate anything. Just because the Bible talks about slaves, it does not codify that every descendant of a slave is a slave. At least, not to my knowledge. Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA. The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws. The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges.
- gregjor 3y ago
  > Just because the Bible talks about slaves, it does not codify that every descendant of a slave is a slave. The traditions and rules in the Bible are somewhat more complicated than "every descendant of a slave is a slave," because the Bible (like Greek and Roman law) recognized different kinds of slaves, with different rights. As to your comment, see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:1-36. For example: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's..." > Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA. The Constitution only prohibits the government establishing a state religion, or favoring any specific religion, as I stated in my original comment. It does not get into specifics like religious customs that conflict with secular laws. However US courts only recognize the secular laws of the US; Sharia, the Bible, Catholic Canon Law have no standing or force in US courts. The argument that the Hindu holy texts predate the US Constitution and American laws means nothing in US courts. > The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws. Not sure what that means or what you refer to. The ruling regarding kirpans has to do with carrying a (ceremonial) knife into a Federal workplace. The decision to allow kirpans hinged on the same agency allowing other sharper and longer knives under their policy, not really a question of freedom of religion. In any case the issue was not can someone practice the Sikh faith in the US, but can someone carry a potential weapon into a workplace (or on a plane, or on a campus) just because their religion calls for carrying such a potential weapon. The answer is "it depends." If someone's religion says they have to carry a sharpened scimitar or a Glock 9mm they aren't going to get the same kind of allowance. > The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges. At issue was an IRS workplace security policy, not a law enacted by Congress. But I get your point.