Thoughts? Do you find the way the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is being accurately depicted in this debate? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments down below.
They shouldn't have privileges beyond another individual because of their beliefs, but the laws that incriminate them in the first place deserve no respect.
religion providing the right for property invasion: no should humanitarian efforts be allowed, protected and supported despite what minor laws they infringe upon? yes life is an indivisible human right. you don't have to be a legal citizen to be human.
I don't know… I agree with what they're doing but I don't think you get to break the law just because your religion compels you to do so. I mean if this is allowed then doctors can refuse to sell contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, people can discriminate against anyone in their business because of their religious beliefs, people can assault or kill others because of their religious beliefs?
We could draw the line at 'this doesn't apply when the law broken doesn't harm anyone' but then folks would argue that illegal immigration harms society and list a myriad of arguments from 'they're takin' our jerbs!' to 'they're taking advantage of support systems that are meant for citizens'. I don't like it. Religious beliefs or not, you have to obey the laws of the land, you can endeavor to change those laws, but you can't just ignore them and claim religious immunity.
I don't think religion is an excuse for this, I understand things are horrible and desperate south of the border but immigrants need to cross legally; our government needs to also be more lenient with it's immigration policy and to start stabilizing countries south of our border to reduce the need for people to immigrate to the USA
I don't think religion should be above the law. It might be a good idea to make an exception in the law for humanitarian aid, but not religion. To each their own culture though.
I support the humanitarian work being done. The video did not make clear how religious belief factors into the work, though. In the articles I have read, the people doing the work were not described as religious.
First, should these people be charged with aiding in the commission of a crime? Second, if people can get away with crimes because of their religion, how far does that go?
Lots of people in the comments are saying that these people should have followed the law, and just done what the establishment wants them to do: "protest" quietly in the corner. I've seen this stance a lot as of late, and it's absolutely bullshit. Advocates of "only peaceful/lawful protests" are absolutely insincere concern trolls. They don't care if the issue in question gets resolved (and often feel it's better how it is), and know that politicians will just ignore protesters who do nothing but hold up signs or post mean comments online. Would you have told the Black protesters during the Civil Rights movement to stop breaking the law, and get to the back of the bus? Because they were very much breaking the law when they entered "whites only" areas, and went against Jim Crow laws.
Personally I find it abhorrent that you need the RFRA in this case at all, as it means that trying to keep your fellow human alive is effectively criminalized.
Finally these laws are used to promote the good side of christianity instead of as a basis for discrimination and shitty behaviour. Somehow i doubt the hardcore prosperity doctrine right wing christians ever saw this coming lol.
It is a very religious act, it is in the bible. We are ordered: “Go, Feed the hungry.” No mention of the circumstances. Like you must feed the hungry, but only if they are in park, legal inhabitant of Israel (the Bible, remember) So these people probably really experience their belief that way, and you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially because nobody took action when the Scientology misused this law. And they were damaging people
This seems like an insane loophole. Can people now force their way into planned parenthood centers to protest abortions because they sincerely believe they're saving the lives of babies? It's their sincere religious beliefs that aborting babies is wrong, so if they got arrested for trespassing would that get overturned too? Would that then allow protesters to actually protest inside planned parenthood centers in the future? This whole thing is ridiculous. You broke the law by trespassing where you weren't allowed.
So aiding and abetting in a crime is no longer a crime?, That's bullshit and everyone knows it, but because they are politically motivated and the judge agrees with them its okay. fuck off.
Look, jf the government thinks it’s ok to use religion to disenfranchise people based on someone else’s religious beliefs, they better acknowledge those same religious beliefs when they’re being used to help people.
Religious beliefs shouldn't save you from basic laws and should never be used as a excuse in the court of law but there deff needs to be a work around for humanitarian efforts saving life should definitely Trump anything that's a misdemeanor
I feel like this would set a dangerous precedent. What's to stop someone from kidnapping gay people and attampting gay conversion therapy because of their religious beliefs. Your religion should never give you the right to break the law.
Laws should mean the same for everybody, regardless of where they came from or what they believe in. The country where that's not true is heading towards a civil war if it's a democracy, or it's not a democracy. Based on this logic terrorists do nothing wrong when they blow up people since they sincerely believe they're doing the right thing.
It's rather troubling how one might need to be seen as religious to act out of humanity and prevent death of another. Compassion isn't a trait exclusive to the devout.
What if it was a sincerely helf religious belief that I must make human sacrifices? I know this is a slippery slope argument but still I feel like it's not ok to use religion to get away with breaking the law.
Thoughts? Do you find the way the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is being accurately depicted in this debate? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments down below.
They shouldn't have privileges beyond another individual because of their beliefs, but the laws that incriminate them in the first place deserve no respect.
religion providing the right for property invasion: no
should humanitarian efforts be allowed, protected and supported despite what minor laws they infringe upon? yes
life is an indivisible human right.
you don't have to be a legal citizen to be human.
Leaving food and water is "aiding and abetting", a felony.
I think it's a dangerous loophole for people, but obviously not in this case
If it can be abused to excuse homophobia, it can be abused by the forces of good as well.
I don't know… I agree with what they're doing but I don't think you get to break the law just because your religion compels you to do so. I mean if this is allowed then doctors can refuse to sell contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, people can discriminate against anyone in their business because of their religious beliefs, people can assault or kill others because of their religious beliefs?
We could draw the line at 'this doesn't apply when the law broken doesn't harm anyone' but then folks would argue that illegal immigration harms society and list a myriad of arguments from 'they're takin' our jerbs!' to 'they're taking advantage of support systems that are meant for citizens'. I don't like it. Religious beliefs or not, you have to obey the laws of the land, you can endeavor to change those laws, but you can't just ignore them and claim religious immunity.
I don't think religion is an excuse for this, I understand things are horrible and desperate south of the border but immigrants need to cross legally; our government needs to also be more lenient with it's immigration policy and to start stabilizing countries south of our border to reduce the need for people to immigrate to the USA
So is this basically America saying “if you do it because of religion, it’s totally fine to break the law?” Where do you draw the line?
This entire video was like: *for legal reasons that’s a joke*
I don't think religion should be above the law. It might be a good idea to make an exception in the law for humanitarian aid, but not religion. To each their own culture though.
I support the humanitarian work being done. The video did not make clear how religious belief factors into the work, though. In the articles I have read, the people doing the work were not described as religious.
I personally think that you should be forgiven for breaking a law in the event that someone’s life is in danger.
This is why we need to build a wall. These people are aiding and abetting unlawful entry into our country.
Yes this is a valid argument because if it’s used to go against the lgbtq then it should reason that it could be used to help these people.
First, should these people be charged with aiding in the commission of a crime? Second, if people can get away with crimes because of their religion, how far does that go?
It seems like a different take on the trolly problem. Do nothing knowing people may die, or break the law to prevent death?
Lots of people in the comments are saying that these people should have followed the law, and just done what the establishment wants them to do: "protest" quietly in the corner.
I've seen this stance a lot as of late, and it's absolutely bullshit. Advocates of "only peaceful/lawful protests" are absolutely insincere concern trolls. They don't care if the issue in question gets resolved (and often feel it's better how it is), and know that politicians will just ignore protesters who do nothing but hold up signs or post mean comments online. Would you have told the Black protesters during the Civil Rights movement to stop breaking the law, and get to the back of the bus? Because they were very much breaking the law when they entered "whites only" areas, and went against Jim Crow laws.
Personally I find it abhorrent that you need the RFRA in this case at all, as it means that trying to keep your fellow human alive is effectively criminalized.
Finally these laws are used to promote the good side of christianity instead of as a basis for discrimination and shitty behaviour. Somehow i doubt the hardcore prosperity doctrine right wing christians ever saw this coming lol.
It is a very religious act, it is in the bible. We are ordered: “Go, Feed the hungry.” No mention of the circumstances. Like you must feed the hungry, but only if they are in park, legal inhabitant of Israel (the Bible, remember)
So these people probably really experience their belief that way, and you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially because nobody took action when the Scientology misused this law. And they were damaging people
If people can use religion as an excuse to be assholes, then others should be able to use religion as a way to actually save lives.
This seems like an insane loophole. Can people now force their way into planned parenthood centers to protest abortions because they sincerely believe they're saving the lives of babies? It's their sincere religious beliefs that aborting babies is wrong, so if they got arrested for trespassing would that get overturned too? Would that then allow protesters to actually protest inside planned parenthood centers in the future? This whole thing is ridiculous. You broke the law by trespassing where you weren't allowed.
So aiding and abetting in a crime is no longer a crime?, That's bullshit and everyone knows it, but because they are politically motivated and the judge agrees with them its okay. fuck off.
Look, jf the government thinks it’s ok to use religion to disenfranchise people based on someone else’s religious beliefs, they better acknowledge those same religious beliefs when they’re being used to help people.
Religious beliefs shouldn't save you from basic laws and should never be used as a excuse in the court of law but there deff needs to be a work around for humanitarian efforts saving life should definitely Trump anything that's a misdemeanor
I feel like this would set a dangerous precedent. What's to stop someone from kidnapping gay people and attampting gay conversion therapy because of their religious beliefs. Your religion should never give you the right to break the law.
Laws should mean the same for everybody, regardless of where they came from or what they believe in. The country where that's not true is heading towards a civil war if it's a democracy, or it's not a democracy. Based on this logic terrorists do nothing wrong when they blow up people since they sincerely believe they're doing the right thing.
I'm so happy to hear that judges are siding with them on their religious beliefs. NO person should die suffering when it can be avoided!
It's rather troubling how one might need to be seen as religious to act out of humanity and prevent death of another. Compassion isn't a trait exclusive to the devout.
Be religious fine but you gotta trespass on private property? not all land is your land
Freedom of religion??? No, how about because it's just the right thing to do to help people not die when that is a real danger.
What if it was a sincerely helf religious belief that I must make human sacrifices? I know this is a slippery slope argument but still I feel like it's not ok to use religion to get away with breaking the law.