Against Religious Exemptions
Tara Smith is a professor of philosophy here at the University of Texas (Austin) and also serves as the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism. In this paper for the Journal of Law & Politics, she dissects the common justifications for allowing people to ignore the law because of a claim of religious belief.
From this synopsis from ARI ( https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/05/... ) you can follow the links to the article and download the PDF. (You may need to register with the site, the Social Science Researcg Network. I downloaded directly the first time, but had to register when I wanted the article to quote here.) Synopsis and link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Smith argues that if the law is to have any meaning, it must apply to all. Her closely reasoned essay takes on four aspects of the claim to exception: "appeals to the First Amendment, to equality, to liberty, and to the significant role of religious identity in many people’s lives."
Prof. Smith opens "by laying out the fundamental case against exemptions, showing how they fracture the backbone of a proper, integrated legal system and sanction illegitimate uses of its power."
Understand that this is not a "libertarian" claim, but an objective one.
She writes:
"Before we can assess the merits of religious exemptions, I must make plain the framework of government that I am relying on. A government enjoys a unique kind of authority, namely, to make people do as it says regardless of whether or not they would like to.(14) This authority to coerce people’s compliance with its rules is justified only to achieve a specific mission: the protection of individual rights. While one can argue about whether that is the mission of government, any coherent approach to the question of exemptions must presuppose more basic beliefs about the role of government as such, so I am simply laying bare my premises."15)"
And cites in support:
"(14) This has become the widely accepted notion of a government, often attributed to Max Weber, who characterized a state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation, reprinted in FROM MAX WEBER: ESSAYS IN SOCIOLOGY 77, 77 (H.H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills eds. & trans., 1946). See THE FEDERALIST NO. 15 (Alexander Hamilton), for evidence of the Founding Fathers employing the same basic idea. While “government” is a wider concept than a “legal system,” I will sometimes use the two interchangeably merely for convenience; it will not affect clarity or argument.
(15) Note that this is essentially the framework of the Founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and much of the reasoning of the Federalist Papers. For a much fuller explanation and defense of the basic nature of a proper legal system, see SMITH, JUDICIAL REVIEW, supra note 12, at 45–66, 88–111; Smith, Objective Law, supra note 12, at 209–21."
Among very many points in this 50+ page work, Prof. Smith asks rhetorically, if a claim of religious exemption allows one person to ignore the law - for instance a Sikh child wishes to wear a large knife to school - why should the lack of religion deny the same right to another person?
From this synopsis from ARI ( https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/05/... ) you can follow the links to the article and download the PDF. (You may need to register with the site, the Social Science Researcg Network. I downloaded directly the first time, but had to register when I wanted the article to quote here.) Synopsis and link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Smith argues that if the law is to have any meaning, it must apply to all. Her closely reasoned essay takes on four aspects of the claim to exception: "appeals to the First Amendment, to equality, to liberty, and to the significant role of religious identity in many people’s lives."
Prof. Smith opens "by laying out the fundamental case against exemptions, showing how they fracture the backbone of a proper, integrated legal system and sanction illegitimate uses of its power."
Understand that this is not a "libertarian" claim, but an objective one.
She writes:
"Before we can assess the merits of religious exemptions, I must make plain the framework of government that I am relying on. A government enjoys a unique kind of authority, namely, to make people do as it says regardless of whether or not they would like to.(14) This authority to coerce people’s compliance with its rules is justified only to achieve a specific mission: the protection of individual rights. While one can argue about whether that is the mission of government, any coherent approach to the question of exemptions must presuppose more basic beliefs about the role of government as such, so I am simply laying bare my premises."15)"
And cites in support:
"(14) This has become the widely accepted notion of a government, often attributed to Max Weber, who characterized a state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation, reprinted in FROM MAX WEBER: ESSAYS IN SOCIOLOGY 77, 77 (H.H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills eds. & trans., 1946). See THE FEDERALIST NO. 15 (Alexander Hamilton), for evidence of the Founding Fathers employing the same basic idea. While “government” is a wider concept than a “legal system,” I will sometimes use the two interchangeably merely for convenience; it will not affect clarity or argument.
(15) Note that this is essentially the framework of the Founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and much of the reasoning of the Federalist Papers. For a much fuller explanation and defense of the basic nature of a proper legal system, see SMITH, JUDICIAL REVIEW, supra note 12, at 45–66, 88–111; Smith, Objective Law, supra note 12, at 209–21."
Among very many points in this 50+ page work, Prof. Smith asks rhetorically, if a claim of religious exemption allows one person to ignore the law - for instance a Sikh child wishes to wear a large knife to school - why should the lack of religion deny the same right to another person?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Taxes, however, can be used to stifle or eliminate certain behaviors. Take President Obama's threat against coal-fired power plants. Through both regulations and taxes, he openly declared that they could continue to operate, they'd just eventually go out of business as a direct result of his policies. This same tack could be taken with regard to any industry or private organization and would be outright tyranny. To support it's application just because it targets a group you despise without consideration for the larger ramifications is the path to enslavement by that very same tyrant. Remember, the income tax amendment was sold as a tax on the rich - the 1% who could afford it. Within a couple of decades it had been expanded to include everyone. Beware the dangers of precedent.
I consider all actions of corporations and private assemblies to be expressions of personal belief systems - whether they be centered around profit or some other principle. I consider all taxation of group entities to be a violation of the First Amendment.
I would also point out that for your argument to hold any water the First Amendment would have to be declared null and void. You have the legal argument completely backwards - holding that any common law can disregard an Amendment to the Constitution and set its own fulfillment of higher priority. Good luck using that logic in any court. When a judge agrees with you it will mean the end of free speech and the end of the Constitution.
It goes back to Antigone. In the wake of the Peloponnesian War, the people of Athens were open to asking some tough questions, questions for which they executed Socrates and exiled others.
The fact remains that Prof. Tara Smith stated her assumptions about the nature of government. Hers was an objective argument, not a "libertarian" one. To a libertarian, ignoring laws because you do not like them is a personal primary virtue.
Like Galt's Gulch itself, in the novel Atlas Shrugged Hank Rearden's speech at trial, or Ragnar Danneskjold's piracy are literary devices, not blueprints for personal action here and now in the real world.
In this case, if anyone can claim any mystical excuse for violating the rights of others, then society itself collapses into a war of all against all.
Intrusive, obstructive laws are not the sole province of progressives. We still have too many law-and-order conservatives who think that the way to solve a problem is to enact a newer stronger law.
As entertaining as Penn & Teller's BS! has been, some of it also was BS.
On the subject of service animal laws, I disagree with you -- a cultural change is one thing; legal requirements are another -- but your statement in reply deserved plusses.
BB&T flooding college campuses with Ayn Rand books, in 2012 we asked Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of the Humanities and English at Yale University in an email to assess Rands writing talent. Bloom responded: “Ayn Rand was a writer of no value whatsoever, whether aesthetic or intellectual. The Tea Party deserves her, but the rest of us do not. It is not less than obscene that any educational institution that relies even in part on public funds should ask students to consider her work. We are threatened these days by vicious mindlessness and this is one of its manifestations.”
Sterling Professor Harold Bloom at Yale is mindless.
This has been discussed on this forum many times. We frequently see religionists claiming to exempt from the law for no other reason than there religions says so. That is not a valid argument.
As for being a snowflake, I left any such foolishness that might have ever existed in me in the jungles of Vietnam when your parents were most likely still in diapers.
You should gain some knowledge of the person you attempt insult. Like about the three the three businesses I've built from the ground up or the 4 earned degrees in both Arts and Sciences.
Perhaps you might read in the archives about how in protest of the Obama bastardization of all our rights and freedoms, of his use of the IRS as a weapon against us, I locked my doors of a very successful business, discharged my employees and did my own John Galt.
Over the past two years I've not been in here much because I've been working to see that some of wrong people didn't get elected.
So other than not having a clue what you are talking about, what have you been doing?
Government is over reaching and incapable.
Churches are on every street corner (in my case 4 in less than a mile) and strategically suited to help the indigent.
Tax exemptions for Churches, again my opinion, should be maintained PROVIDED the church is using that exemption to help its local community. There should be no homeless problem in America. There should be no food stamps.
I know this from asking two churches (one catholic and another Presbyterian) why they didn't do more. Both said LIABILITY. Imagine that.
Government regulation stopped a local church from using a property they own from setting up 20 beds last summer. When its 100+ degrees for 100+ days who cares if your sleeping on a sleeping bag in air conditioning and getting a meal.
Seriously, Government need remove itself from a great many social issues and let people and the myriad of churches step up locally for their exemption, rather then ship their money and give their time overseas.
My 2 bits.
I could agree if you wish to make the case that in the good ole days kids did bring weapons to school, and moreover, that anyone who works for a living should be able to sign a contract, get married, etc. But those are not the topic of Prof. Smith's article.
The question is whether any claim of "conscience" exempts you from the law.
Penn & Teller: BS! did a great episode on service animals and another on handicapped parking. They were right on. Both laws are BS. Those who demand them are either snowflakes or parasitic lawyers.
A doctor in Detroit was arrested for performing genital mutilations on children which the parents of the children wanted. But the state intervened to protect the children from their (religious) parents.
The general argument remains in every case: does your claim to "conscience" relieve you of an obligation to obey the law?
(Prof. Tara Smith has not "drunk the PC Kool-aid of equal outcomes over equal rights." The questions she raises are specifically about equal rights, with some people claiming that their religion gives them more rights than other people.)
If you read the article, you will see that she explains the two halves of the First Amendment clauses on religion. You are considering only one of them.
Oh, service animals are welcome too.
When corp America was forced to see that barriers like steps as the only entrance to their stores or service animals be banned were allowed, they discovered a new market for their wares. They also came (kicking and screaming) to discover that not all gimps were poor and destitute. Some of us have money to spend and we enjoy shopping as much as the next person. Corp America just had to be forced to conform to new ideas.
I cannot express just how frustrating it is to sit in my wheelchair outside a shoe store while a clerk runs back and forth bring pairs of shoes to try on. Or trying to buy flowers for my wife? All that's not even thinking about curb cuts for sidewalk access, ramps into the courthouse, schools and other public building that a paralyzed Vet pays taxes for can be accessed.
If I've made ANY dent into your ignorance for these accommodations I'll consider it a good day, but I'm not holding my breath.
The congress should address the excesses of litigation by these groups but they won't because they believe that they have to cater to them for votes. They are only 1% or less of the voting electorate.
Personally, I detest such life styles.
Load more comments...