Religious Freedom Amendment Would Allow The Precepts Of Religion To Trump The Law

[citysyde]

North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment Would Allow The Precepts Of Religion To Trump The Law Of The Land

The North Dakota Religious Freedom Act proposes to revise the state constitution by adding the following section to Article 1:

“Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

The language of the bill is purposely broad and how it can and will be interpreted by the courts has legal scholars on edge. Essentially what was once a crime is no longer a crime unless the law can prove that the action that was once a crime is not part of the religion of the accused. Furthermore if the crime that was once a crime, (let’s say discrimination), is no longer a crime under the guise of religion, then to withhold federal funds from the group or organization that is committing the crime, (discriminating), that is no longer a crime due to religion, is against the law.

According to Robert Doody, executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas, “this proposed amendment could lead people to refuse to follow virtually any law. It could allow people to argue that they have a right to abuse their children, refuse to hire people of different faiths, or deny emergency health care.” As per Alex J. Luchenister, Associate Legal Director for American’s United for Separation of State and Church,“Measure 3 could force the state government to provide taxpayers funds to religious groups. It would also cause religious groups to be favored over non-religious groups. As a result of Measure 3 religious groups and persons could claim exemptions from laws intended to protect people’s rights, such as laws requiring the provision of reproductive health services or prohibiting the infusion of religion into public education.” As per Jusita columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci J. Hamilton, the North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment is “an opportunity to unilaterally adjust public policy to fit each religious individual’s and organization’s world view.”

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/10/north-dakota-religious-freedom-amendment-would-allow-the-precepts-of-religion-to-trump-the-law-of-the-land/

Measure 3, due to appear on the North Dakota Ballot, this Tuesday, June 12, 2012

[struggle4progress]

1. Too much uncertainty surrounds Measure 3 (Grand Forks Herald)

Published June 08, 2012, 06:11 PM
By: Tom Dennis, Grand Forks Herald

Measure 3 on Tuesday’s ballot, the North Dakota Religious Freedom Amendment, would amend the North Dakota Constitution with the goal of protecting religious freedom.

Amending the constitution is serious business, and voters rightly are careful or even skeptical about doing so. That’s why the measure’s supporters have argued that the change is nothing new. Federal law already protects religious freedom in much the same way as the North Dakota amendment would, the supporters say ...

In fact, it’s only partly true — and in the end, it’s not true enough. Measure 3 to some extent is uncharted terrain, and the fact that it’s a constitutional amendment would limit North Dakota’s alternatives if something goes wrong.

Because of that uncertainty — as confirmed, for example, by the recent expression of “grave concern” about the measure by the Western North Dakota Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — North Dakotans should vote “no” on Measure 3 ...

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238384/group/homepage/

[struggle4progress]

2. Lutherans have ‘grave concern’ with Measure 3 (Minot Daily News)

June 8, 2012
By JILL SCHRAMM - Staff Writer ([email protected]) , Minot Daily News

... The Western North Dakota Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is leaving the decision of how to vote on the measure to individual conscience. But at its synod assembly in Minot, members passed a resolution to "express its grave concern regarding the proposed constitutional amendment in Measure 3 and urge its members to study it carefully in light of the freedom we share in Christ."

The Western North Dakota Synod consists of 189 congregations with about 67,000 members.

The Northern Plains Conference of the United Church of Christ also approved a resolution against Measure 3 at its annual meeting.

The North Dakota Family Alliance initiated the measure. Tom Freier, executive director of the alliance in Fargo, said the resolution of the Lutheran synod stems from lack of information. It is unfortunate that no one from the synod contacted his office to discuss the measure, he said ...

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/566379/Lutherans-have--grave-concern--with-Measure-3.html?nav=5010

[struggle4progress]

3. Religious freedom measure on ballot (Williston Herald)

Posted: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 12:15 pm | Updated: 12:17 pm, Tue Jun 5, 2012.
By Kevin Brant Williston Herald | 1 comment

... The measure is sponsored by the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment Committee. According to their website, the amendment will restore standards for when the government could issue mandates counter to individual’s religious beliefs that existed before the United States Supreme Court ruling in the court case 494 U.S. 872 Employment Division v. Smith. That case held the Free Exercise Clause permits the state to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus deny unemployment benefits to a person discharged for such use. The question was whether a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. The courts answered affirmatively ...

A group called “North Dakotans Against Measure Three” claims that if Measure three is passed, it could allow a person to use personal religious beliefs to break laws dealing with child abuse, domestic violence and discrimination in the name of religion or religious beliefs.

The website lists other events that could occur if this measure passes, including that men would be allowed to marry girls as young as 12 years old and that employers could fire unmarried pregnant women because of the employer’s religious beliefs.

The website gives examples of what the group behind opposition to Measure 3 says are potential scenarios if it passes: A rural pharmacy owner could refuse to dispense live-saving HIV drugs because of religious belief that homosexuality is wrong. Or: A nurse at a publicly-funded hospital could claim the right to refuse prenatal care to an unmarried pregnant woman on the grounds that sex outside of marriage violates his or her belief ...

http://www.willistonherald.com/news/religious-freedom-measure-on-ballot/article_0e0b883a-af32-11e1-a8d5-0019bb2963f4.html

[LiberalFighter]

6. Would only allow marriage to girls as young as 12?

Why would it stop there? If it would be constitutional to marry a girl as young as 12 why couldn't it be lower?

It would see that if anything can be done as long as it was religious in nature what would stop sacrifices? Or killing people because they were homosexuals or fornicators or didn't believe in their god?

[JoePhilly]

4. So Honor killings become legal ... good plan.

[Jim__]

5. Sounds like North Dakota could become the drug capital of the US.

But, I'm sure they'll find that the government has a compelling interest in outlawing, say, marijuana.

[DetlefK]

7. Atheists are a problem!

1st possibility: Since atheism counts as a religion to theists, we will be free to harass, mock and ridicule and nobody could order us to take down an insulting billboard questioning the existence of God, because we hurt feelings or something.

2nd possibilty: If atheism doesn't count as a religion, then the law is discriminatory to a certain minority of the population, depriving them of protections and rights that others get. How long until the courts rule, that this bill is unconstitutional?

[Swede Atlanta]

8. Under any recent U.S. Supreme Court this would not pass muster...

but with the radicalization of the current Roberts court, I suspect the Catholics on the court would consider this Constitutional.

We are a multi-cultural, multi-racial, complex society. We have citizens of various faith traditions and some that subscribe to no religious belief system. We need to keep government and spiritual or religious beliefs separate.

The only way you can accommodate everyone's belief systems is if you take a wholly secular view on the law. Laws, both affirmative and negative, should be made based solely on the impact to secular society.

[struggle4progress]

11. It's an incredibly stupid idea, but why do you think any SCOTUS would have objected?

[rrneck]

9. Hmmmmm,

Looks like a good way to codify religious belief into law. Move the burden of proof onto the state by having it evaluate "sincerity" in religious belief, add money, stir and serve chilled theocracy.

[kestrel91316]

10. Do the good people of ND realize that this will lead to

legalization of sharia law like they are so terrified of??

If Islam says to do something, like stone adulterers to death, the state will not be permitted to intervene.

Whoops! Unintended consequences.........

[bongbong]

12. If it passes

Somebody will move to N.D. and start a religion whose main tenet might be "Stealing & murder are our Holy Duty".