[Editorial]
I am non-denominational… I believe in God but not in anyone religion.
Mainstream religion is not the problem… it is the radical that are the problem. If you look around the world all the religions of the world has for their beliefs the “Golden Rule” which basically says to treat people as you want to be treated.
But it the extremists that cause the problems. Here in the US it is the evangelicals who practice… the fire and brimstone religion and preach hate of "others".
It is the conservative religions the in the US that is the problem here. And the courts are backing their “religious freedom,” the courts gave them a blank check to discriminate. The cake shop in Colorado said the magic words… “it is against my religion!”
It is those magic words that allow people to discriminate against us, there is no way to counter it, no way to prove that it isn’t.
But they courts have put limits on “religious freedom” they don’t allow human sacrifice. They don’t allow drugs. They don’t allow bigamy. So saying it is okay to discriminate against us… is bull!
The thing is many conservatives think being LGBTQ+ is a choice. They totally ignore all the medical research calling propaganda!
But we are only the tip of the iceberg!
Take a look at JD Vance and Peter Hegseth. They are both far-right Christians Hegseth has even gone so far at to tattoo himself in Crusader’s symbols.
The far-right Christians believe a wife should not work (Hint: Hegseth’s firing of women generals and not promoting women officers).
They are against divorce.
Of course we know their position on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.
We have seen cases where they claim religious discrimination because they had to work on their holy day even though they knew it was a requirement.
So what would I change?
Nothing!
What?
In the past, there were several tests used by the Supreme Court to determine whether a law improperly burdened or discriminated against religion.…
The Sherbert test:
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court developed a test for laws that substantially burden someone's religious practice. The basic approach was:• Does the law substantially burden the person's religious exercise?• If so, does the government have a compelling interest for imposing that burden?• Is the law using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest?
The Lemon test asked whether:
• The law had a secular purpose;• Its primary effect neither advanced nor inhibited religion; and• It avoided excessive government entanglement with religion.
But Trump’s court toss those tests out! The Supreme Court abandoned the Lemon framework in 2022 and adopted their own test.
I would go back to the Lemon and Sherbert tests.
If a religious sect want a court for their disciples… fine. But secular law prevails and there can be no double jeopardy between the religious and secular courts. In other words if a person murder a LGBTQ+ person and they trial him in religious court and the court finds him innocent because of their sect’s belief. That cannot stop a secular courts trying him on murder. Lastly, a religious court can not prosecute a non-believer.
Religious freedom means the government shouldn't tell you what to believe or unnecessarily interfere with your religious practice. It doesn't mean your religious beliefs automatically determine what everyone else must do.
[/Editorial]
