Legal Analysis: Zubik petitioners may have pushed argument too far

[Stan]

By Jason Hines, PhD, JD - Prior to 1990, the Supreme Court’s standard in determining whether a law violated a citizen’s free exercise of religion was intimately tied to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. An Adventist, Adele Sherbert, sued to receive unemployment benefits after she was fired from her job because she refused to work on the Sabbath. In the case that now bears her name, Sherbert v. Verner, the Court ruled in her favor, establishing the rule that the government could not substantially burden a citizen’s religious freedom unless the government had a compelling interest and had narrowly tailored the measure to minimize infringement.

The post Legal Analysis: Zubik petitioners may have pushed argument too far appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote

Several religious charities are arguing that the concessions the Obama administration made regarding the contraception mandate [in the Affordable Care Act] do not go far enough. At this time, all the organizations have to do is fill out a form stating their objection and listing their insurance company. The religious organizations argue that this is still a substantial burden to their free exercise because for them filling out the form (and in naming their insurance company) is a spiritually impermissible facilitation of what they consider a moral wrong.

coupled with the following

Quote

Cases involving religion ask two largely perfunctory questions – first, whether the citizen is sincere in their beliefs, and two, whether there is a substantial burden on the citizen’s practice of their faith. The Court is reluctant to decide on whether the citizen is sincere. It does not want to be in the business of legitimizing some beliefs over another.

 

YIKES!!!

[LifeHiscost]

Watching what the circumstances seemed to behoove earlier Seventh Day Adventists submit to, to follow their conscience toward what their Father in heaven asks of them, is well prescribed in defining a disciple of Christ.

10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.... Revelation 2

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!   

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Life has given us link to a video that is of value.  However, it is subject to misunderstanding.

1) The video is focused on events that occurred in England.  In my evaluation less that one minute, of the 27.5 could be related to the situation in the United States of America.  As such, it should not be construed to relate to the country in which I live.

NOTE:  I am well aware of the SDAs who were convicted of crimes in U.S.  military courts and sent to prison as a result of those convictions.  Regardless, the video relates to what happened in England.

NOTE:  I am not an expert legal issues in England and therefore, my comments are limited to the United States.

2) U.S. law differentiates between a "pacifist" and a "Conscientious Objector."   A military pacifist is one who refuses to participate in the military in any manner.  A conscientious objector (CO) limits participation in the military, generally refusing to participate in armed conflict, but is willing to participate in the military in ways that do not involve the direct taking of human life.   The video fails to make that distinction. 

3)  Therefore, its comments to the effect that the SDA Church as always been a pacifist denomination are simply wrong as related to the denomination in the U.S.A. and also in some other parts of the world.

NOTE:  I would not argue a statement to the effect that in some parts of the world the SDA denomination has been a pacifist denomination for 100 years or so.  That statement would be  true.

4)  As a denomination today, we have members who are pacifist, conscientious objectors and full-fledged combatants.  The position of the denomination, in the North American division, is that this issue is a personal one that that whatever the decision, pastoral care should be provided to all.  As a result of that position, in the NAD military service should not be a reason for church discipline.  However, the church here in the NAD recommends that its members generally serve as COs, if they chose to serve in the military.

NOTE:  I am well aware that such is not the case in some parts of the world.

5)  In the United States, people may be allowed to serve who are conscientious objectors to include serving for 20 years or more.

NOTE:  I have served in the U.S. Army.  My served includes service as an enlisted person (I was drafted) and as a commissioned officer. (Officers are not drafted.)  I have served for 20 years on active duty and some additional time in the Reserves.  In all of those years, I was formally registered as a conscientious objector.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I need to be very clear.  I am not advocating that SDA members enlist in the military.  Outside of the a couple of situations which the majority of SDA who wish to enlist will not meet, a traditional SDA will not be able to serve in the U.S. military without violating their convictions.

However, our members hold to a variation is understandings, beliefs and life styles.   From this perspective, many of our members do enlist in the U.S. military.  These people deserve pastoral care as they serve.

 

[Green Cochoa]

Moses was a military general, as were Joshua, David, Gideon, Jephthah, Barak, and many others.  Even Abraham marshaled forces when the need arose.  We live in an imperfect world.  Sometimes, as King Solomon wisely penned, there is "a time to kill" (Ecclesiastes 3:3).  Many of these generals receive honorable mention in the Bible's "Hall of Faith" chapter, and God honored their righteousness in carrying out His will in their wars.  

As an Adventist, therefore, I cannot make a blanket statement that it is wrong to kill in war.  The question must first be asked, "Is this a righteous war?"  If it is not, then I could not conscientiously bear arms in it.  The Adventist Church should do more to limit the legal framing of conscience as a corporate matter, and instead push the fact that the conscience is a highly individual and personal right--one given by God that should not be violated.  I should not need, as an Adventist, a letter from my pastor or conference to tell the government what I believe.  I should simply need a Bible text or two to support my conscience.

[hch]

As a SDA soldier, I was tempted to remain in the army when my tour was up, but I was not tempted to give up my conscious objector beliefs. I waited with bated breath to see how the talks were going between the GC and army to see if I could reenlist and still believe in the sanctity of life. As a white coat the army was not so bad. But there was no deal until after I left the army. Which turned out to be not such a big deal - I hired on doing the same job as a civilian that I had as a soldier.

Even before that I was tempted to enlist after I passed the entrance testing process. Went into a room with 3-5000 guys and ended up in a briefing room with about 20 men that were definitely being recruited for our potential. I was the only high school drop out among guys with college degrees and better. At the time I was making about $68.00/mo and they promised me I could fly medivac copters and would never have to fly a cobra. I had been in long enough to know that they were not being completely honest. Kept the faith.

And it is sad to see folks not knowing that it is not time to yield the faith of Jesus. Young folks join the military as if it is just a job and they don't have a clue that's when the mark of the beast comes it will be harder in uniform than in civilian life. And to hear folks like Mr. Doug Bachelor explain the difference between killing and murder.  Just a few verses after the 10 Commandments, God spells it out.

But it is an individual choice rather than collective conscience. Unfortunately, when one group of believers goes to an extreme it will have repercussions on the group of believers: the innocent often suffer with the guilty.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

 

Quote

The question must first be asked, "Is this a righteous war?"  If it is not, then I could not conscientiously bear arms in it.  The Adventist Church should do more to limit the legal framing of conscience as a corporate matter, and instead push the fact that the conscience is a highly individual and personal right--one given by God that should not be violated.  I should not need, as an Adventist, a letter from my pastor or conference to tell the government what I believe.  I should simply need a Bible text or two to support my conscience.

 

I happen to agree with him.

However, in the NAD the official position of the denomination is to make it a matter of individual conscience and not a corporate matter.  Perhaps Green, in the NAD has experienced something different?  If so, that experience was outside of the position that it is an individual matter.

As to a letter from a pastor or the local Co0nference, he is both correct and wrong:

1)  Under Selective Service and law, in actual practice, a formal statement that the person asking for a 1A-O classification was a member sometimes had some weight.  But, technically  the actual classification still depended upon the individual and his personal beliefs.  NOTE:  Only males were subject to the d raft.

2)  As to the change of a military person to a non-combatant status had very little to do with organizational membership and written materials from a denomination.  These were almost solely dependent upon the personal life and beliefs of the individual.  It should be noted that as an Army chaplain I played a formal role in these classification procedures and know exactly how they took place.

 

  

 

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

You may have had different experiences than I have had, I'll grant that.  I have been forced, not by the NAD, nor the church, but by the government-allied organizations to present a letter from the church (I couldn't have just written my own) that said I could not take a test on Sabbath and therefore requested deferment to Sunday.  I had a professional exam to take at one point where I needed a letter from the pastor like this and at that time my local church was between pastors and did not have one.  I had to find another Adventist clergy for the letter.  It frustrated me.  I wanted to complain, but dared not, because the test or its results could be refused me for any reason, and I was required to pass it in order to work in my state.  So I just had to jump through all the hoops like an obedient sheeple in order to get my test moved to Sunday.  It seems that the SAT is a little easier because many students regularly take it on Sunday for religious reasons.

There should be no reason to be an Adventist, a Jew, or a Seventh-day Baptist, Anabaptist, etc. in order to have an exemption for conscience' sake.  One's corporate or church entity should not dictate his or her own opportunities, and neither should one's own conscience determine policy that applies to others in his or her church.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, generally I write in the context of the United States and U S law.  You may be responding in the context of another country and I know nothing of its law.

A private organization can set up whatever criteria that it wants, within limits.

If your context is within the U.S. A, and you were asked such by a governmental organization, I would simply say that they were ignorant of the issues, which is quite probable.

US law is clear: It is your personal beliefs that are important.  There is abundant case law that supports what I have said.