Indiana practices religious freedom (updated 3apr15)

George Rebane

Indiana’s new law providing for the practice of religious freedom is not really a new law at all, but joined at the hip with bipartisan legislation – Religious Freedom Restoration Act - passed in 1993 and signed by President Clinton.  That law clarified and underlined the Constitution’s provision for not letting government define religious preferences and practices.  Indiana’s legislation abets what 19 other states already have on their books.

But for me the real question is the freedom to practice what you believe and what is taught by your faith.  The Constitution guarantees such freedoms as long as they do not deny others the practice of their equally guaranteed freedoms.  And most certainly Indiana’s law will not prevent its LGTB contingent from doing their thing that includes getting supportive services from numerous suppliers who are ready, willing, and able.

If I operate a legal business, I want to have the maximum latitude in choosing my suppliers, determining my inventory, hiring my workers, and servicing my customers.  I want my competition and customers to drive my business decisions, not the state.  And that includes deciding to whom I will sell or not.  I can see the state entering this equation only for national security considerations – e.g. if I invent a super weapon, I may not sell to anyone I choose.

Indiana’s law will clearly allow business owners to discriminate among their potential customers based on their religious beliefs; to deny that is ludicrous.  But so what?  Businesses can already deny service for numerous less salutary reasons – ‘No shoes, no shirt, no service.’  And that still is not the important point here.

Some on the Left argue that since a business is registered/permitted by the state, it is in some way a public utility and must cater to all of the public.  That argument leads directly to the removal of the last vestiges of private property.  And violating that side of the Bastiat Triangle (q.v.) first weakens and then collapses the remaining two – liberty and security in your person.  The state will then constructively own us lock, stock, and barrel – a sought after conclusion to the organization of society as held by many (most?) progressives.

So encourage the LGTB folks to buy their wedding cakes from the many who will gladly supply them.  And if some merchant refuses my patronage because I am a Christian, or an immigrant, or …, let them - I will go somewhere else.

Finally, Indiana did not have to pass their religious freedom law since it already exists in the US Code.  In the furtherance of states’ rights, all states should pass an amendment to their constitutions that simply allows them to practice prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of any federal law they deem is not being adequately enforced by the federal government.  That would handle all such cases and many more (including border security and illegal aliens).  I submit this latter recommendation to the several states as part and parcel of the Rebane Doctrine.

[3apr15 update]  Some thoughts on what is a religion since the comment stream below seems to have trouble defining it in an acceptable manner that relates to the events most recently brought up in Indiana.  The subsequent discussion then has gone off the rails since people in this day and age seem to have no common understanding of what is a religion, especially of the kind that are considered legally when discussing church and state issues.

I am not interested in getting into a nitpicking contest with readers who insist on having special purpose, and/or exotic definitions of the term.  Instead the following offering hopefully covers the bases of what mainstream America thinks about when they are asked to consider a person’s religion, as opposed to a recently fabricated, unique, and/or ad hoc belief system shared by one or a very few, and no one else.

A religion is a belief system that has the following attributes –

1. Holds that a human being is transcendent in that his complete being exceeds the common space and time dimensions in which we observe him;

2. That there exists a higher being or intelligence that gave rise to the observable universe, a being (call it God) that is deserving of continuing recognition, supplication, and gratitude – in short, of being worshipped through both formal and informal proceedings;

3. That this higher being (God) has communicated with Man through natural acts, favored prophets, and even personal incarnations to establish its bona fides and to prescribe ways in which we would please and displease it.

4. That these communications have been gathered, disseminated, and passed on through succeeding generations in a canonical form referred (informally aka ‘scripture’) the content of which is attributed to God himself, or to God-inspired intermediaries;

5. That it contains a formal structure of communal worship (aka liturgy) during which the adherents of the religion gather to acknowledge their common beliefs, and give visible and unambiguous glory to their God.

6. That it contains certain specified communal procedures or acts that serve to define transitions in the relationship of its adherents to God and/or to each other within the blessings of their God.  These are known as sacraments – e.g. baptism, marriage, last rites, etc – and often serve to distinguish one religion from another.

7. Its validity does not lend itself to disproof by the accepted means of falsification as required of scientific knowledge, therefore religious knowledge is by definition unscientific.

We can add attributes to this list with the liability that it then becomes too confining, and rejects belief systems that are commonly acknowledged as being religions.  Number 2 above comes close to this when considered in the light of, say, Buddhism and Taoism.  The main point here is that this definition does not allow for Sam, Sally, and John to meet on Monday, spend the week cobbling together some of the above attributes, and on Friday announce that they are devoted adherents of their newly concocted religion which should then be given equal consideration in society’s resolution of religious issues.

Comments

[George Boardman]

Taking advantage of his new-found freedom, the co-owner of an Indiana pizza parlor announced he will not cater gay weddings.

Pizza? At a wedding? Of course, this is Indiana.

[fish]

Posted by: George Boardman | 02 April 2015 at 09:11 AM

They did say however that if a gay couple walked in and ordered a pie that they, of course, would gave been served!

[fish]

Posted by: Jon | 01 April 2015 at 09:13 PM

Hi jeffy.......!

[Patricia Smith]

Well, one positive outcome from the Indiana fallout: The Church of Cannabis has been established in Indiana where marijuana is currently illegal for medical or recreational use. The church may skirt the law under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which limits the government from intervening with a person's exercise of religion.

I guess every cloud does have a silver lining!

PS Bessee, so glad to hear that you've become enlightened and have renounced SAM for NORML (at least one day of the year).

[Todd Juvinall]

So ethics and morality are truly situational then Patricia?

[George Rebane]

GeorgeB 911am - "... the co-owner of an Indiana pizza parlor announced he will not cater gay weddings."

A closer examination of this quote reveals that what really happened was that the pizza lady was asked by a reporter the pointed question of whether she would cater a gay wedding. She responded that she would not, but would serve pizza to any gay person visiting her establishment. This exchange was the sum and substance of what a group of lamestream reporters were attempting to dredge up by going from retail store to retail store fishing for some response that fit their template of what a typical hayseed Hoosier felt about gays. Your wordsmithing their achievement was exactly their desired result. A response to a reporter's planted question became a gratuitous "announcement".

[Russ Steele]

Over $255,000 Raised for Christian Pizzeria After Threats Force Owners into Hiding

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/nearly-150000-raised-for-christian-pizzeria-after-threats-force-owners-into-hiding/

This 7:30AM this morning it was $100,000. At 2PM it was $200,000 and at 3:45 it is $255,000 and counting. There is growing support for the Pizza Man and his family.

[Todd Juvinall]

If the thugs want a fight I guess the best way to fight without violence is to beat them economically.

[Patricia Smith]

Todd, weren't you the one who told me to lighten up? Try your own advise. My comments about the Cannabis Church were truly tongue-in-cheek.

[Todd Juvinall]

If so use something like a LOL then. T and C is hard to know in print.

[Don Bessee]

Pattie when you are out there throwing around terms like American Taliban, thinking you were being tongue in cheek does not immediately come to mind as your intent.

[George Boardman]

It didn't take long for the Republican leaders of Indiana to capitulate. They may want to pander to social conservatives, but when Wall Street jerks the chain, they always respond like the good lapdogs they are.

[Todd Juvinall]

Hey at least we get three squares and a warm lap.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Boardman | 03 April 2015 at 07:11 AM

I really think this whole episode illustrates just how out of touch with American culture the Republican party is on certain issues and why in many places younger voters are leaving the party to adopt the equivalent of a 'decline to state' stance (albeit many for an even more strident brand of libertarianism)..

Really, what did Indiana and Arkansas expect to happen? The laws they passed were not mirrors of past religious freedom laws which targeted government activity--these laws targeted private activity--and the private sector responded in kind, stating clearly that they won't tolerate intolerance as a legal standard.

Look at the example of Arkansas, who has put millions of dollars into a statewide economic development strategy to attract Tech, Talent and leverage Territorial Assets as the underpinning of their next economy. The big story here is that you cannot attract the "Three T's" without the fourth "T" that has emerged, tolerance.

For those of you that will state that corporate America is bullying Indiana and Arkansas into changing their laws, I would point out that the private sector is exercising the very choice you embrace. As private entities the NCAA, APPLE, dozens of sponsors of events in Indiana and companies like Angie's List looking to stay and grow their business there, have a perfect right to vote with their feet, and at the end of the day their vote is overpowering the vote of a narrow band of social conservatives who fail to see that he ground has changed under them.

[Todd Juvinall]

Sorry Frisch you are just plain wrong as usual. Polls show Americans by a strong majority say a person or business should be able to have a religious exemption to serving someone or something their religion is opposed too.,

Here is a good example of Americans standing up against these LGBT fascists in Indiana regarding the Memories Pizza Place. You can see the fascists Channel 57 info broad here and then after you are outraged at her donate. It is up to almost $600,000 for these good Americana types. Frisch is in LaLa land if he thinks real Americans are going secular.

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

It is now been shown that the LGBT fascists are only a few in n8umber but have mastered the multiplication of numbers by phony internet and Twitter algorithms. The backlash for their overreach is coming.

[Gregory]

Thank you, Steven Frisch, for a classic Bandwagon appeal. "We must not tolerate the intolerant" and encourage others to not tolerate the intolerant by encouraging companies to flee lest they be hit by the chunks that have hit the fan.

If that's a preview of Democratic Party activism for the next election cycle, this isn't going to be pretty. I personally can't stand Carly Fiorina, but she pegged this one correctly:"“I think this is a ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful".

Also from today's WSJ: CEOs like Apple Inc.’s Tim Cook, who publicly objected to the Indiana law, have engaged in “a level of hypocrisy here that really is unfortunate... When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia... But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

There is a plethora of bakers who will bake and decorate any wedding cake that is desired... there's no need to use the power of the state to ruin bakers who really don't want to put two grooms or two brides up top.

[George Rebane]

I draw your kind attention to the 3apr15 update to this post in which I have responded to calls for defining 'religion' in the context of the current debate.

[drivebyposter]

"If that's a preview of Democratic Party activism for the next election cycle, this isn't going to be pretty.'

It won't be in any case. While the Republicans certainly have their problems, the pro-immigration party and business leaders vs. the mostly anti-immigration base fer instance, the Democrats seem to need to define themselves as anti-Republicans. Since the US political Left appears to be a coalition party made up of a bunch of special interest groups, without a bad guy you have nothing to accrete around. A ginned up controversy works as well as something that matters. The War on Womyn is the gift that keeps on giving.

Once the Republicans are gone (or have evolved into something completely unlike the modern day party), largely due to demographic pressures, then the Democrats can have their civil war. Hopefully it won't look like Yugoslavia, but that would be my best guess. Perhaps the ongoing rush in technology will break the Wheel of Fortune.

[L]

Ok, lefties, remind us in exactly which states the people have approved gay marriage at the ballot box?

Logically, then, there will be an even larger majority opposed to the strong-arming of believers to accommodate the LGBT crowd and the enablers.

The only way this could have happened is through the social engineering of our corrupt left wing "legal" system. Or do libs not know that?

As for drive by's thoughts, when the donks get their way in all things, it won't look like Yugoslavia but the Third Reich. L

[Paul Emery]

Oh Righties remind me why the government is in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway?

[Paul Emery]

George
You are attempting to quantify a definition of religion for what purpose? My religion changes daily and is very personal and does not subscribe to many of your attributes. it is indeed my own inspiration and I feel no need to join in with others to celebrate, drink symbolic blood or engage in group chants or rituals. Religion is to me a personal celebration of consciousness and inspiration.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 April 2015 at 11:10 PM

You are attempting to quantify a definition of religion for what purpose? My religion changes daily and is very personal and does not subscribe to many of your attributes. it is indeed my own inspiration and I feel no need to join in with others to celebrate, drink symbolic blood or engage in group chants or rituals. Religion is to me a personal celebration of consciousness and inspiration.

Because you asked for an attempt at definition upthread.

Given the description of your "faith" I believe that you would qualify to not cater a gay wedding were that your inclination.....I mean if "freedom of association" was still a right in the United States.

[fish]

Oh Righties remind me why the government is in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway?

Ask those who endorse omnipotent and comprehensive government Paul.....most conservatives I know would prefer that government not be involved in private/ personal matters.

[fish]

....most conservatives I know would prefer that government not be involved in private/ personal matters.

I'm going to retract this statement.

As currently practiced "conservatism" is just as interested in your personal life as proggie/leftists/liberals....just different aspects.

[Todd Juvinall]

Actually fish I have no interest in what you do in your home or business as long as you are not hurting others.

[fish]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 04 April 2015 at 07:14 AM

There has recently been a fairly vociferous debate here recently surrounding the sale and consumption of marijuana and the degree of punishment associated with an activity that "doesn't hurt others".

[fish]

There has recently been a fairly vociferous debate here recently surrounding.....

Yuck! I still need an editor.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1110pm - As Mr fish points out in his 543am, it was you who asked us directly (in your 1135am on 1apr15) to put down some words that give a coherent definition of what most of us would call a religion.

You apparently did not read my 3apr15 offering very carefully, because your definition of religion does away with the very rich and specific semantics historically connected with the term, and instead vacuums up another batch of liberal 'it means whatever I want it to mean'. That tactic, of course, detracts from the information carrying capacity of our common language, and, as universally applied by you and yours, relegates reasoned discourse about issues to somewhere between very difficult to impossible.

However, in the process you have asserted that you do not have a belief system that endures in time, a considered belief system that is mostly stable (updated parsimoniously), that can be learned by compatriots, and therefore used to reliably predict your social behaviors. All of that is required of members who want to contribute to a stable and workable society.

Despite your protestations, I know you well and long enough to reject such a picture that you paint of yourself.

[Patricia Smith]

My family was not religious, but I have been a seeker all my life. When I was as young as 5, I would take the bus to Sunday school by myself. Later I went to whatever church my friends attened and have experienced services of many different religions including Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Protestant, and Jewish. Later I tried out Buddahism, New Age & Wicca. What I learned is that all religions have some version of the Golden Rule and I think that sums up what religion SHOULD be all about.

I have soured on the religion of Christiany mainly because they are so vocal at telling us all how we should behave while rarely behaving according to the tenets of their religion themselves. (To be fair, the same can be said of every religion.)

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 353pm - thank you Patricia for sharing a bit of your path. Given your last statement, have you equally soured on all the other religions with which you are familiar? If not, why do you reserve the most soured position for Christianity?

In the final analysis, it is a function of religion to unabashedly prescribe correct behavior (see #3 above). Only in recent decades has our decadence IMHO reached a level where 'doing your own thing' should no longer be subject to criticism by others - today we are taught to be 'non-judgmental'.

Happy Easter!

[Gregory]

"Oh Righties remind me why the government is in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway?"

Look it up, Paul. "Sanctifying" marriage is precisely what the government *doesn't* do.

[Paul Emery]

Well corrected Gregory. Let me change that to "licensing marriage"

[Patricia Smith]

George, I stated why I have soured on Christianity in my post. Some Christians are very vocal at telling others how to live while ignoring the tenets of their faith themeselves. So many like to cherry-pick what is "gospel" while choosing to overlook the major commandments of Christ (loving one another, helping the sick & poor) and instead use the Bible as a rationale to hate and discriminate.

I think Paul Emery stated it best - religion is your personal relationship with the Creator and one doesn't need an intermediary to practice their beliefs. So it's not the religion I have soured on as much as it is the hypercritical practioners.

Same applies to star-spangled patriots who wrap themselves in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but don't embrace everyone's rights - only their own.

[fish]

Hey look.....not electing to bake gay wedding cakes......now 100% SJW Warrior Outrage Free!

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/04/03/watch-crowder-go-undercover-to-muslim-bakeries-to-order-gay-wedding-cake-192026

[fish]

SJW Warrior

Curse the redundancy curse!

[Todd Juvinall]

Patricia Smith seems to think hypocrisy lies only in a Christian belief system. Wow! Who knew? I guess one can believe in nothing and never be a hypocrite? Paul Emery is her hero? Jeeze, when one has a belief system as he stated he does that can change from day to day I can see why Smith would think that is so great. Never having to make a commitment is very secularly safe isn't it?

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 8040pm - You are illustrating why the Left and Right will NEVER have a meeting of the minds. We each use language wholly differently. Your confirming that each individual's unique spiritual belief system should be termed a 'religion' gives us upward of 7 billion religions in the world.

If I attempt to come along with that approach, and still seek a reasonable discussion with you about the recent Indiana legislation, then what term would I use to efficiently differentiate the kind of belief system that is commonly understood and that I defined in the 3apr15 update to this blog post? Do you see the problem?

Your "some Christians" assertion does not make a well-founded point because one can say that 'some xx' for any religion (my definition), and given the retreat of Christianity in the western countries, it is hard to conceive that in recent decades Christians have had much impact on social behavior; in fact, the evidence points to exactly the other direction.

[Patricia Smith]

George, that is exactly my point. People are deserting Christianity because of the antics of the vocal fringes (many of whom are Republican officials) saying ridiculous things like a woman's body shuts down during a rape making it impossible to get pregnant. Maybe you should demand that your party retreat from the phony baloney "religious" arguments and stick to policy issues. It would benefit the Republicant's (not a misspelling) and Christianity. Religion is supposed to bring peole together rather than divide them.

I might be able to support pro-life choices if they really were concerned with the life of the unborn fetus, but that baby and mother are on their own once the child is born. It is unconscionable to force a woman to have a child she has no way to care for and then remove support for pre-school programs, daycare so the mother can work, food stamps, or health care.

As far as trying to define religion in context for your Indiana law arguments, just say organized religion (rather than the lossley defined religion of people like Paul E and myself).

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 1127am - I haven't found that your cited "antics" (voiced by an insignificant minority of Christians) are the important reasons for Christianity's decline. Please see under the Religion and Critical Thinking categories for a fuller discussion of these issues.

And your conception of how a woman is "forced" to have a child is peculiar to collectivist thought - if government doesn't pay for it, then it is considered denied by society. It might surprise you that there are altogether different ways of interpreting government's involvement in such personal affairs as abortion.

Alright, adding 'organized' as a modifier may be effective yet still cumbersome, but then other modifiers are needed for personal or politically mandated belief systems that will still fall under your (and PaulE's) broad definition of religion as anything that anyone believes. Since most of them already exist, why not use them or give them their own unique words?

[fish]

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 06 April 2015 at 11:27 AM

Religion is supposed to bring peole together rather than divide them.

Funny....that's what the Former Union Editor says about politics!

[Todd Juvinall]

I think Patricia Smith is a fine example of the current culture. Anything goes, no rules and no morality. I am no prude but goodness, citing one goofy Republican about rape and claiming that is the position of the rest? Arne;'t Liberals always preaching don't judge? Anyway, I bet she and the liberals of her ilk are the same ones that tell us all that those terrorists murdering under Islam are really not representing ALL the Muslims. What do you want to bet?

[Gregory]

"Well corrected Gregory. Let me change that to "licensing marriage""
- Paul Emery | 05 April 2015 at 12:55 PM

Let me pull a Paul and answer your question with questions... Generally, relatives closer than 2nd cousins are forbidden marriage by law. Why is that? Were those laws unconstitutional?

[Michael R. Kesti]

I don't know about constitutional but the idea was to prevent inbreeding. Now that it is acceptable to bear children outside of wedlock it is no longer effective.

[Gregory]

So, it's now acceptable to for a man to choose his 1st cousin or sister to be his babymomma?

I'm also reminded of a Tom Lehrer song:
There once was a man named Oedipus Rex,
You may have heard about his odd complex.
His name appears in Freud's Index 'cause he
Loved his Mother!...
Yes he loved his mother like no other
His daughter was his sister
and his son was his brother
One thing on which you can depend is
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is!

I'm not sure how acceptable childbirth out of wedlock is; calling someone a bastard is still considered ugly even if they really are a bastard (to remind the semiliterate...it's a person born of parents not married to each other).

**a weather report... my skylights are covered with snow, 2400' level downstream from Nevada City**