Possible thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court on the whole Obama/Contraception matter

[poker10]

This opinion was written by one of the members of the High Court concerning: Employment division v. Smith:

*"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

“They assert, in other words, that “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as “abridging the freedom . . . of the press” of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.” *

The one who wrote this? Justice Scalia, the very conservative Catholic.

Wikipedia’s explanation:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

 

[TevereNauta]

This is not a news story but a topic for discussion, you need to repost in philosophy, or, more likely, moral theology.

 

[JonNC]

This opinion was written by one of the members of the High Court concerning: Employment division v. Smith:

*"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

“They assert, in other words, that “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as “abridging the freedom . . . of the press” of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.” *

The one who wrote this? Justice Scalia, the very conservative Catholic.

Wikipedia’s explanation:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

Lots of differences here. First and foremost, of course, is the question as to whether the entire health care law is constitutional, IOW, found in the enumerated powers.

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

I am not convinced that this regulation is not “aimed at” the restriction of religious beliefs.
As evidence, it is clear that the president’s true goal is a government dictated single payer system of health care. Religious beliefs include responding to Christ’s call that we help the least of His children.

Jon

 

[bellasbane]

Lawsuits over the Obama administration’s ruling requiring employers to pay for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization in their health coverage, without a broad religious exemption, have already begun. Based upon previous Supreme Court rulings, it is unclear how the courts will rule in these cases, a legal expert told The Christian Post.

Ambassador Douglas Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law, does not agree with the president’s decision, but his analysis of Supreme Court rulings suggests that it is uncertain how courts will decide these cases.

“I would have to tell [President Obama], that my honest answer about the law is that I think it is unclear as to what is required here,” Kmiec said, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).

In that case, two native Americans were denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using peyote, an hallucinogenic drug, as part of a religious ritual in their Native American Church. Kmiec noted that in that opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Oregon was not required to provide a religious exemption because the law prohibiting peyote did not single out a particular religion for disfavor. (An exemption was later provided for the Native American Church through the Oregon legislature.)

christianpost.com/news/legal-expert-informed-white-house-that-law-is-unclear-on-contraception-mandate-69105/

Now its a news article.

 

[Dawnia]

What some people seem to forget is that the government has already issued some exemptions to other groups, although on a much broader scale. In order for the government to infringe on religious practice, it has to show that there is a superseding governmental interest. (The government’s interest in protecting it’s citizen’s from murder justifies infringing on human sacrifice) The government is going to have a hard justifying their infringement on religion when they are exempting other groups for far less reasons.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

What some people seem to forget is that the government has already issued some exemptions to other groups, although on a much broader scale. In order for the government to infringe on religious practice, it has to show that there is a superseding governmental interest. (The government’s interest in protecting it’s citizen’s from murder justifies infringing on human sacrifice) The government is going to have a hard justifying their infringement on religion when they are exempting other groups for far less reasons.

Yes and no. AFAIK the waivers granted for Obamacare are not permanent. Secondly, it might not necessarily result in the exemption of religious groups but rather the voiding of the exemptions granted.

 

[Dawnia]

Yes and no. AFAIK the waivers granted for Obamacare are not permanent. Secondly, it might not necessarily result in the exemption of religious groups but rather the voiding of the exemptions granted.

How so? I’m not following. Elimination by who?

 

[iloveangels]

This law also only targets less than half the population, the adult female portion, with free services.

Why were the services to be free not things that apply to the entire population? Like anti-biotics, which are life-saving, to boot.

And why did they choose the most intrusive method possible? They could have set up a sign-up for anyone not covered to be covered by their own request, like an individual rider in a government pool. Then it would have been a matter of individual request instead trying to over-ride the USCCB and the official church. Why did they do it this way?