|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Islam, Women, and American Civil Rights (9/16/2010 8:19:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xkittenx
The state outlawed polygamy but ultimately it was up to the Mormons to decided whether or not to follow that law.
The LDS church chooses not to practice polygamy however there are various branches of Mormons who DO practice polygamy to this day.
And once again, the lunch counter is not a religious organization.
Ahh, the "public policy exception"!
Polygamy is currently illegal, and this directly conflicted with a religious practice.
Abortion is legal, and this directly conflicts with many religions beliefs.
Both are "public policy exceptions" to the wall between church and state, I think, as the overriding "public interest" is higher than the exercise of religious freedom.
I found some interesting stuff on this site: http://www.religioustolerance.org
1993: Text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Hialeah case: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc,. et al. v. City of Hialeah
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court
(a) Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872. However, where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS (RFRAs)
Overview:
During the late 1980's, a series of rulings by the US Supreme Court upheld the right of governments to restrict religious freedom, as long as the limitations applied equally to all faiths. A series of laws at the federal and state level were initiated, in an effort to limit such restrictions. They have all run into constitutional problems because they attempt to grant special religious freedoms to individuals and organizations that are not available to Agnostics, Atheists, and other secularists and their groups. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. Any law that gives special privileges to religious people and groups is clearly unconstitutional.
These laws remain immensely popular among the general public and religious institutions and will probably continue to be introduced, passed, signed into law, and eventually declared unconstitutional.
So, I guess I'm wondering if the overall treatment of women in the Muslim religion - but especially in the specific case that I started this thread with - could be classified as a "public policy exception" and legislated?
Firm
|
|
|
|
