At first blush, the "Religious Liberty Restoration Act" measure on the North Dakota ballot may not seem especially offensive. But the proposal, which state voters will consider tomorrow, is far more controversial than it may appear.
My friend and former colleague Joe Conn recently wrote a piece on the Measure 3 ballot initiative, which he explained has the potential to "rewrite the relationship between religion and government in North Dakota."
In practical terms, if critics are correct, the proposal would give religious institutions the power to opt out of laws they find problematic, on issues ranging from discrimination to health care. The regional Planned Parenthood affiliate also believes Measure 3 would affect women's reproductive health, especially emergency care.
Steven R. Morrison, a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law, said the amendment includes "strikingly broad" language.
Morrison ... said the amendment isn't problematic in so far as it protects religious individuals whose faith-motivated conduct doesn't interfere with the rights of others. But when religious people and institutions are protected at the expense of third parties, problems necessarily ensue.
For example, Morrison said, under the amendment, a pharmacist might be able to refuse to fill a birth control prescription or a hospital employee could refuse to participate in an emergency abortion.
"North Dakota," Morrison noted, "is a large, sparsely populated rural state, and many people may have access to only one pharmacy or one hospital.... The amendment will protect religious practice, but its negative externalities may severely curtail others' enjoyment of their own constitutional rights."
Ian Millhiser added, "[M]any states and the federal government exempt religious believers from some laws that 'substantially burden' their religious faith. The North Dakota initiative, however, targets any law that merely 'burdens' a person's religious faith. In other words, even the most minor inconveniences to religious practices would be suspect under the initiative."
Measure 3 made the statewide ballot after the combined efforts of local religious right groups and the North Dakota Catholic Conference, the influential lobbying arm of the state's Catholic bishops.
Leave a Comment:
If this passes, will we see disciples of Warren Jeffs moving to North Dakota, since laws against polygamy and the sexual assault of children 'burden' their faith?
This was sponsored by the Catholic Church. One of the Church's longest-standing doctrines is that the Church takes precedence over the State in disciplining priests. For instance, accusations of child rape by priests will have to be turned over to the Church.
Of course, this might mean that the reintroduction of auto da fe. Who knows? We might even get witch burning again.
Wasn't there once a Christian principle of 'rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
Jesus is quoted as saying that, but it certainly seems that few of his avowed followers have been willing to do it.
So, they are attempting to get away with murder, literally. How many religions believe in sacrifice? Shouldn't the States look into all religious beliefs before passing this law. I'm gonna be pretty upset if they start killing chickens, I know people who are trying to save chickens. They are going to have to start with a list of all religions and examine what they actually believe. I wonder if any religion believes it is okay to rape or take on 40 wives. And there are new Churches cropping up all the time. I might start a church(The church of Hard Knocks) that states all the Legislatures in my State have to give me $100.00 a month. Then, we'll all have our Sunday prayer meetings on the Governors' front lawn. Pets allowed.
Obviously some religious beliefs (like not facilitating birth control) will be protected while others (like polygamy) will not. In other words, the state will pick and choose among religions, in deciding which ones allow their adherents to violate which laws.
I can't see how this isn't establishment of a religion - a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. But I bet five justices on the Supreme Court will find a way.
The US has a long history of favoritism and double standards where religion is concerned. Also, any constitution is only as good as the people who interpret and enforce it. Too many good wittle wibewals (not you) seem to think that there is something "magic" about the US Constitution and that it is infallible protection from nasty people. They are disastrously wrong.
I just see this as a great business opportunity for a progressive pharmacist to open a store in North Dakota.
So, if I create my own religion, then I can do anything in South Dakota? Rape, murder, do whatever drugs I deem necessary, etc. If they say my religion isn't as good as someone else's then we have a problem with church/state preference. Seems like SD is another candidate for being encouraged to secede.
Brought to you by the North Dakota Catholic Council of Pedophiles and Bishopry..
Isn't this how the Taliban started slowly disenfranchising the people? I say we outlaw all religion because it surely is disenfranchising US all!
How will suppressing rights protect rights? Besides which, you are assuming that all religious people would be on board with @!$%# like this, which is what the religious right wants you to think. And they would also like to have it that all leftists are uniformly hostile to religion. Why are Earth would you want play along with them on any of that?
So this law makes it OK to follow Sharia law? I'm surprised, I thought it was being banned other places.
We should hope this passes because it will be havoc with all sorts of institutions, employers and people deciding to opt out. Maybe then, the legislators will try to undo the law. And it won't be easy with all the religious opposition to repeal.