Why Phoenix Goddess Temple Founder Couldn't Employ a Religious-Defense Argument

[rug]

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016 AT 12:10 P.M.
BY MIRIAM WASSER

From the moment Tracy Elise, head priestess and founder of the Phoenix Goddess Temple, was arrested and accused of running of a brothel, she began saying that her legal case was about religious freedom, not prostitution.

The authorities, meanwhile, maintained just the opposite: “This is no more a church than Cuba is Fantasy Island,” Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery famously stated at a press conference following Elise’s arrest.

As New Times wrote about in this week’s cover story, “The Trouble with Sex,” Elise sincerely believes the Tantric or “sacred sexuality” work she and others did inside the temple was part of her religion, but the court barred her from making that argument — we’ll get into why that was the case, but, first, a quick recap of her story:

Elise and dozens of others affiliated with the temple were arrested in 2011 after a New Times cover story called the temple a New Age brothel, and got the attention of the Phoenix Police Department. The police conducted a six-month undercover investigation that culminated in a dramatic and international headline-grabbing raid of the temple.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/why-phoenix-goddess-temple-founder-couldnt-employ-a-religious-defense-argument-8220296

[struggle4progress]

1. That's a strange tale

[Brettongarcia]

2. A problem in "freedom of religion"

This story illustrates the problem with granting special privileges, freedom, to religion. The problem is: do you grant them to ALL religions? Don't you finally end up discriminating? Favoring some, but failing to validate others?

What do you do with a religion that demands human sacrifice for instance? Or temple prostitution? (Which were both long common religious practices).

The fact is that "freedom of religion" almost inevitably ends up favoring one religion over all others. And allowing it to impose its will on all others.

[rug]

3. Actually, this story shows exactly what is done with temple prostitution.

All within the contemporary framework of criminal and religious statutes.

[struggle4progress]

5. Is it your view that the state cannot in any circumstances recognize claims of conscience?

[Brettongarcia]

7. The law to date handles this reasonably well

But it may be that sometimes the state selectively recognizes religions. Laws, if we are not careful, may often bias in favor of one religion over another.

So what should be done here? The law seems to be muddling through here, reasonably well, somehow. But somewhat imperfectly.

For example, a currently posited case: what will the law do, when a Protestant woman who needs an emergency abortion to save her life, shows up at a government assisted Catholic hospital - that refuses her this emergency treatment?

According to EWTN, conservative Catholic values win; and the Protestant woman dies.

And? EWTN listeners are trying to vote in that particular religious value. To make it a law.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I disagree with the state.

"“operating a house of prostitution is not religious in nature.”"

For some practitioners, that form of sex is highly spiritual, in any definition of 'spiritual' I can understand. The fact that money changes hands is uninteresting to defining whether or not the endeavor is religious or not. Some religions have auditors to ensure members are tithing properly/fully to the church. Those are still 'religions' or 'churches' entitled to associated protections.

I cannot craft a logical, principled litmus test that excludes this group as a valid religion, that would not also exclude hundreds of 'generally accepted as real' religions/churches.

[rug]

6. It's the “Callahan test”.

http://openjurist.org/658/f2d/679/callahan-v-woods

[Brettongarcia]

8. The court takes the" least restrictive" approach

The court agreed that the plaintiff's belief was perhaps genuinely religious: his belief that a social security number was "the mark of the beast"; so he didn't want an SS number for his daughter.

But it finally cited "compelling" public interest, in its decision that this religious belief could be simply overridden. Albeit by the least restrictive method available.

This seems like a workable law. Though note that it stops short of fully honoring all religious beliefs.

[Brettongarcia]

9. The belief must be 1)sincere, and 2)religious

In the Callahan test proper.

But here being religious is defined in part as following the Bible, honored by" every church." Which might exclude or neglect other religions.