DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jeff Sessions forms Religious Liberty Task Force to protect freedom of religion

Jeff Sessions forms Religious Liberty Task Force to protect freedom of religion

By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Monday, July 30, 2018

The Justice Department on Monday announced the formation of a Religious Liberty Task Force aimed at ensuring religious groups’ protections when their beliefs conflict with government regulations.

In October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive outlining a broad interpretation of religious freedom protections. It provided support for employers making hiring decisions based on their faith or objecting to providing health insurance for birth control.

The task force will follow up on that directive, Mr. Sessions said Monday. It will facilitate Justice Department compliance with the memo; facilitate coordination with it across government agencies; and reach out to religious organizations for feedback and develop new policies and strategies to protect religious freedoms.

If necessary, the task force will also review new lawsuits to protect religious freedoms, Mr. Sessions said.

“A dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is not challenging and eroding a great tradition of religious freedom,” Mr. Sessions said announcing the task force. “There can be no doubt it’s no little matter. It must be confronted intellectually and politically and defeated.”

Mr. Sessions will chair the task force. Representatives from multiple Justice Department components including the Civil Rights Division, Civil Division, Office of Legal Counsel and Office of Legal Policy will also participate.

Since President Trump has taken office, the Justice Department has settled 24 cases involving 90 plaintiffs who raised a religious or moral objection to the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate imposed on employers, Mr. Sessions said.

Archbishop of Louisville Joseph Kurtz praised the Justice Department’s efforts to fight the Obama contraceptive mandate. He talked about a recent case in which a group of nuns challenged the order in federal court.

“Thanks to the regulations of this administration issued this past October for which we’re very grateful, the contraceptive mandate’s heavy fines no longer loom over us, as this did before,” he said.

Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department has also obtained 11 indictments and seven convictions involving arson, an attack or threat against a house of worship, and 12 indictments in attacks or threats on people because of the religion.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/30/jeff-sessions-forms-religious-liberty-task-force-t/


I don't necessarily disagree that a persons religious beliefs should be taken into consideration in certain situations that result in legal matters. But I do have a question as an Atheist; when my beliefs (personal, just like personal religious beliefs) are disregarded for the religious beliefs of another, what law or agency will protect me? Am i a second class citizen under this political system? I think laws should be laws and they should apply equally regardless of personal beliefs.

I personally believe that weed is natural and more or less harmless and we should be free to use it as we please. Does that mean I get some kind of special protection for my belief?

I personally believe that all church income that is not immediately redistributed as charity should be taxed. Where is my special IRS law?

If we are going to legislate based personal beliefs, what do we do when personal beliefs conflict with sexuality, race, other personal beliefs, laws regarding handicapped people, or any other number of potential conflicts? Can personal beliefs trump any existing law now? I think this is a super slippery slope and is nothing more than political pandering. Anyone who hates special interests groups getting political/legal preference should despise this. You simply can't be for this and be anti-anything that is special interest and still logically support this.

Twitter Rains Hell On Jeff Sessions' New Religious Liberty Task Force

https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-rains-hell-jeff-sessions-010301228.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

This pic pretty much sums it up.

You're another oneOCD. I'm gonna make a copy of your posts and show them to GOD when I get to the Pearlie Gates. He is gonna drop the hammer on you and Swish's ass. lol

When you threaten an Atheist with the wrath of God... smdh

The guy who supports emotionally destroying immigrant children as a penalty for their parents trying to find a better life for them in a very unbiblical world, he's going to hand deliver a bad report to God regarding the lefty Atheist who opposed his views. I hope that works out for him. lmao

It’s gonna be hilarious if you’re the one who ends up burning in hell.

And I mean that.

I don't believe in hell but even if I'm wrong I wouldn't wish it on him. I'd rather he live for eternity with 'good' people knowing/realizing the error of his ways and that he wasted his life being an awful human being.

That’s nice.

I choose to treat people the way they treat me.

Fine with this part. It's a task force focused on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.




This part gets tricky. There will always be situations where this is appropriate, but I would think these are special circumstances or small business owners. I don't see this being an issue with most larger companies and employers in general (viewed as % of workforce employed) - and I am vaguely aware of Hobby Lobby's values/practices.

I agree that there is the potential for a slippery slope - as is true of most changes in law at a fundamental level.

I don't know if atheism qualifies as a religion; I looked up the definition of religion and it could fall under this one:

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

But then again a lot of ideas would fall under this category. For now I won't pass judgment on that one way or the other. The weed belief falls under the same category at this point.

I'll disagree about not taxing church income not redistributed immediately. There are reasons not to (further increase the power of the donations through investment, save for disaster relief, etc). Most non-profits I have seen do not distribute all of their donations immediately.

The million dollar question, as you posed it:

I don't have a blanket answer here. I think you take each situation, in context, and weigh each party's rights. Where that becomes slippery is when it creates an unintended precedent; ex. when a case ruling for a very focused/specific situation is applied in the broadest sense.

If all else fails, we can always complain argue discuss it on Dawgtalkers



I quote the whole statement here so as not to appear I am taking things out of context, but what I am interested in is why you make the bolded claim. Honest question so I can better address the statement. For now, I'll leave it as it's an enforcement of First Amendment rights which is why I can support it at this time.


In the end, as long as this applies to all religions, I don't see a problem here....yet. The article does not mention a specific religion, just religion in general.

Guys relax. I'm to lazy to make copies of your posts.....Have a little fun. We can fight percieved racism later.

"Perceived" racism.

I before E except after C. Please don't go to the refs again.

Let's just stop that crap. God isn't going to lower the hammer because of politics. He, She, It is going to lower the hammer because you weren't a good person with a good heart.

JMO

From my point of view, 'religious freedoms' beyond being able to follow the beliefs of your choice are not guaranteed under the constitution but are nothing more than a special interest issue. One in practice of their religion should not be allowed to publicly interfere or deny the rights and pursuit of happiness of others based personal religious beliefs.

A muslim person should not be able to keep me from eating pork. Would you agree?

Assuming you answered yes, how then can you agree that any religion should have the special right to partake in the creation of legislation that governs us all just so they can insure their personal religious beliefs are not not somehow offended? This is completely special interest.

Add to that that we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, that all of us should be equal under the law... how can this be justified?

If I ever go into a business that is open to the public and am denied service because I'm an Atheist, would you find that fair and balanced? What if I had a business and denied people who are Christian service?

This is what I mean by slippery slope and that you can't be pro religious freedom and anti-special interest of any other group. You can't have it both ways.

Intolerance is not a good quality.

If you know the mnemomic device a) how did you screw it up and b) why did you call attention to it?



I don't "go to the refs".

You guys just get mad online too much, and aren't clever enough to word retorts properly.

"I can't wait until I get to heaven, so I can watch your sorry asses burn in hell" is really DawgDuty and his worldview in a nutshell

posting is praxis. Don't let them get u down, dawgduty.

Who is being intolerant? I'm not. I have zero issue with people choosing and following their faiths, zero. I have no problem with a religious person talking about or practicing their religion, none.

The only intolerance I see is those with false Christian persecution perceptions in a predominantly christian country trying to force their beliefs on others via legislation that reflects their beliefs and crying foul when other legislation does not!

Fowl? LOL

My religion says I must smoke between 2-4 bowls a day in order to reach peak baptism.

Brainfart... thanks for pointing it out.

Rasta Man...

Are you familiar with rastafarianism?

Intolerance is actually a neutral quality.

It depends on what you're being intolerant towards regarding whether or not it's good or not.

Truth.

Like Nazi's being intolerant of Jews... or normal kids being intolerant of special needs kids... it's all about context.

Not in this case.

Do explain, I'm very interested in hearing your rationale here.

Nope. You aren't interested in rationale conversation w/give and take. You want to dictate.

ok Vers, have a good night. BTW - "rational" not "rationale" since you caught me earlier I thought I'd return the favor.

Touche'

Thanks for clarifying. I now better understand the statement you previously made. Interesting lens through which to look at religion and one I'll have to think about more in depth. From many aspects, I could even see myself ultimately agreeing with you.

A Muslim/Jewish/Christian/Hindu person should not be able to keep you or I from eating pork/beef/vegetables/desserts. Agreed. The question I have is in what ways do they keep you from doing so? There are no laws (to my knowledge) that decree such prohibitions. But I see how this plays into you next point, so its not necessary to answer my question:




And I do think you have a valid concern here. I don't have a quick and simple answer nor do I think one exists. If it did, it would have been implemented. We likely have been the fortunate product of balance and checks/balances to date. Nevertheless, I will attempt a response as is only fair.

I think you make the majority of your laws for non-religious reasons. IF there is a valid, objective (this is key), non-religious reason for banning pork, then ban pork. Otherwise Congress has made a law that respects an establishment of religion and (arguably) prohibits the free exercise thereof. Certain religions will line up on both sides of the bill no matter what. As will pig farmers (against), cattle ranchers (likely for...just go with it for argument sake), and vegetarians. Point being, everyone has special interests that they vote for. It's one of the primary reasons people vote. It doesn't have to be religious, but I can see how one might classify these beliefs under the same umbrella in this context. But context is key.

In the end, it's going to come down to if you think the motive for that special interest is valid or not. Motive could be profit, moral beliefs, religious beliefs, desire for anarchy, whatever. Some people will say profit is not a valid motive. I would generally disagree, but that doesn't necessarily make me right, particularly when its profit vs. morality. Take religion out of this next one - what happens when the motives are American jobs vs. benefit to the American consumer? No matter what, motive is subjective and can be discounted or highlighted.



I'll respond that all of us are intended to be equal under the law, and this is where the majority of the controversy stems from. Who's rights/beliefs are more important or take precedent in that specific context? Where it gets dangerous is when these rulings that are handed out on very specific topics/cases are extrapolated in the broadest sense. People on both sides immediately panic, fearing the worst. And sometimes, they should. Other times, they shouldn't. It's easy for me to say they should or they shouldn't, but I am not always right. I don't share the same special interests or have the same passion on the topic as those who might disagree with me. And for me, that's great, because I will generally learn something in the process even if I don't change my views. I have learned something in our conversation thus far and have admitted the need to ponder other parts of it in more detail.



If that business has a bona fide reason for denying you service, and can prove it, then they can deny you service. Now notice I didn't say because of your religion or because you are an atheist, but in general the statement I made has been true. It's your rights against theirs as I mentioned above - whose rights take precedent can depend upon the situation. Simply stating you are an atheist probably won't fly as a reason to deny you. Requesting a custom t-shirt that disparages a religion probably could be supported as bona fide. In general, you should not be denied service for entering a business that does not espouse religious values or beliefs as part of it's mission statement or type of business product/service, because as far as I am concerned, that is not a bona fide reason. But of course there are exceptions to this as there should be. I will leave it at that for now but would entertain modifying this statement if I have reason (or examples) to cause me to do so. And when I say this, understand that I don't think its possible to make this a cut/dry answer; no matter what, you will have exceptions no matter how you define the rule.



At this point in time, I feel I can agree with this statement when using the context/lens you described. This probably warrants deeper thought, specifically around the importance of religion as a motive/raison d'être, but that opens up a whole other set of issues. I'll end it here for the time being. I do appreciate your previous reply.

Not picking on you but interested in this as an open question to any takers. This seems rather subjective no matter how you look at it. How does one judge what is intolerant? How do you judge whether the issue is good/bad?

Do you have a tolerance for child molesters?

I would assume the answer is 100% no, correct?

No, his use of the word rationale was correct.

I do not have tolerance for child molesters. I will probably fall lockstep with the "standard" morality scale on topics this extreme.

But the middle where it's topics that are not so clear? How do you define what is intolerant? Seems pretty subjective to me. What is intolerant to one person may not be to another since it depends on how that person interprets whether its right/wrong, good/bad, etc.

I agree, but that was PDR’s point. It all depends.

For example. I have little, if any, tolerance for people who discriminate against the LBGT community.

But for some religious people, they don’t have a tolerance for LBGT at all.

So who’s right? The people who place equality and civil rights over religious beliefs, or the people who place religious beliefs over equality and civil rights?

You're making my point for me.

The "oh, is Donald Trump racist? Prove it!" people deserve intolerance.

We should mock them and be intolerant of them.

You voted for Trump for 1 of 3 reasons:

1) You're a spiteful idiot

2) "Not Hillary"/means to an end by way of a useful idiot

3) you got fed up and wanted to throw a brick through the window

2 or 3 are fine, just distinguish yourself from the weird pathetic racist dudes that think Trump is insightful and admit it

Rationale | Define Rationale at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/rationale
rationale. noun.

Rational | Define Rational at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rational
adjective

Wrong.

In his sentence he used it to describe a noun not be one.

ad·jec·tive
ˈajəktiv/Submit
nounGRAMMAR
a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.

It's pretty straightforward.

We can dabble in moral relativism, but we sleep at night with our choices or we don't.

It's safe to say "I"M WITH THE SENILE RAPIST WHO CRIES LIKE A BABY!" isn't the path to take if we're being serious.

So let me try a terrible analogy....

If you offer a listed product for sale, (hotel room) you cannot discriminate.

If you are involved in custom product creation, you can accept or refuse any proposed work.

There is no difference between a naked lady or 2 guys on a cake. The difference is that it is a made for order product and the owner can reject the suggested illustration for whatever reason including a Steelers helmet on a cake sold in Cleveland.