Religious Liberty At Risk...?

[Daniel2]

The last few years, there've been many claims that in the United States of America, "religious liberty" is under attack and at risk.

The following article, written by Rev. Emily C. Heath was just published in the Huffington Post today:

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions

Posted: 09/05/2012 10:14 am

It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.

B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.

B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.

B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.

B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.

B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.

B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.

B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.

B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.

B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.

B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Follow Rev. Emily C. Heath on Twitter: www.twitter.com/calledoutrev

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[KevinG]

A quiz that validates Emily C, Heath's definition of religious liberty. OK.

[blackstrap]

The scoring Key "B" is false logic.

[USU78]

Confirmation bias . . . who woulda thunk?

[happy]

Boy, yeah. This is defiantly a "quiz" with extreme biased.

"Objection your honor, leading the witness!"

[Daniel2]

Aside from ad hom attacks on Rev. Heath, would anyone care to demonstrate substantive logical flaws in her thought process and/or the questions she poses?

Daniel2

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[USU78]

ad hom attacks on Rev. Heath

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Walden]

While I do believe that the list in the original post is biased, for those who do believe that your religious freedoms are being infringed upon, can you please share the basis for these beliefs? Have LDS beliefs and/or activities been infringed upon by the government at a more rapid pace than in earlier US history?

[Daniel2]

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

So... that's a "no," then...?

Your accusation of definitional error on my part, while side-stepping responding to the substance of the post, is, in fact, a textbook example of an ad hom attack. Perhaps 'irony' was your aim.

From www.dictionary.com:

ad ho·mi·nem

   /æd ˈhɒmənəm ‐ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Show IPA

adjective

1.

appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2.

attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[USU78]

Dan'l, Dan'l, Dan'l . . . it ain't ad hominem to question or even attack the method of formulating questions. Nobody's said anything about her possible biases, although I suppose somebody could make such a case. Her questions are plainly formulated in order to induce a specific response. When this is done with poll questions, and the poll questions are suggestive of answers that must be given in order to make the responder likely to give a response, it is called a "Push Poll." This is just another species of "Push Poll." And the suggested answers necessarily lead us to conclude a bias in the formation of the questions.

Repubs accuse Dem pollsters all the time of doing this . . . but the issue is methodology. Fair, unbiased methodology eschews suggestive questions.

Surely you can see the difference.

[Kenngo1969]

The last few years, there've been many claims that in the United States of America, "religious liberty" is under attack and at risk.

The following article, written by Rev. Emily C. Heath was just published in the Huffington Post today:

Nope, no slanted questions there! Yeesh! C'mon, Daniel ... however we might disagree, I expect better from you.

[ERayR]

Aside from ad hom attacks on Rev. Heath, would anyone care to demonstrate substantive logical flaws in her thought process and/or the questions she poses?

Daniel2

I see no ad hominem but they do challenge the assumptions exhibited in the question and answers.

Edited September 6, 2012 by ERayR

[Mansquatch]

Whole lotta false dichotomy going on in that one. I was really waiting for the option where religious liberty was at risk because of being forced to pay for or support something my religious views hold as evil. Never saw it though.

[Daniel2]

USU, Kenngo, and ERayR,

As all your comments, above, are related, I'll attempt to clarify:

The Reverend's poll clearly does have "a bias." She clearly has a specific opinion, and that opinion is reflected in the formulation of her questions.

However, no one here has attempted to rebutt the substance of either her questions--OR her bias. Instead, those that have commented have mostly implied that the author's view/opinion/slant/approach/bias, alone, is reason enough to dismiss the points of her article--and that would be an example of an ad hom fallacy.

Rather than defensively suggesting that the author's view doesn't have merit merely because "she's clearly biased" (or a similar complaint) I'd love to see someone address the substance of her arguements that religious liberty is somehow under threat.

Daniel2

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[USU78]

Whole lotta false dichotomy going on in that one. I was really waiting for the option where religious liberty was at risk because of being forced to pay for or support something my religious views hold as evil. Never saw it though.

Or . . . somesuch as doing photographs of a SSM in violation of both your religious views and/or your "ick" detector . . .

[Daniel2]

Whole lotta false dichotomy going on in that one. I was really waiting for the option where religious liberty was at risk because of being forced to pay for or support something my religious views hold as evil. Never saw it though.

What falsehoods, specifically, do you see? Can you explain them?

What are you referring to when you say that "religious liberty was at risk because of being forced to pay or support something" that "[your] religious views hold as evil"?

Daniel2

[ERayR]

USU, Kenngo, and ERayR,

As all your comments, above, are related, I'll attempt to clarify:

The Reverend's poll clearly does have "a bias." She clearly has a specific opinion, and that opinion is reflected in the formulation of her questions.

However, no one here has attempted to rebutt the substance of either her questions--OR her bias. Instead, those that have commented have mostly implied that the author's view/opinion/slant/approach/bias, alone, is reason enough to dismiss the points of her article--and that would be an example of an ad hom fallacy.

Rather than defensively suggesting that the author's view doesn't have merit merely because "she's clearly biased" (or a similar complaint) I'd love to see someone address the substance of her arguements that religious liberty is somehow under threat.

Daniel2

Question: How does on rebut the substance of something that has no substance to rebut? How does one rebut the substance of something presented in the absurd?

[Mansquatch]

What falsehoods, specifically, do you see? Can you explain them?

I will pick one:

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.

B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

Well, hmm no one can actually answer "A" unless they have a situation like being held against their will. But everyone can answer "B" unless they are holding someone against their will. B also has the added "when did you stop beating your wife" effect for those icky religious types.

By not allowing me to select anything other than A or B when there are other answers I have been pushed into a false dichotomy.

What are you referring to when you say that "religious liberty was at risk because of being forced to pay or support something" that "[your] religious views hold as evil"?

Daniel2

I was referring to a few of those exact situations that have been happening around us.

[Kenngo1969]

All of the questions are based on false dilemmas/dichotomies. You know that the world don't work that way, Danny Boy!

[Daniel2]

Or . . . somesuch as doing photographs of a SSM in violation of both your religious views and/or your "ick" detector . . .

Assuming your referring to this incident?:

The Associated Press June 5, 2012, 6:55PM ET

NM court upholds gay discrimination ruling

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.

A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court on Thursday agreed with a previous ruling, in which a district court judge said the photo studio is considered public, similar to a restaurant or store, and cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation, the Albuquerque Journal reported ( http://bit.ly/JSAdE5). The photography studio had argued that its refusal was not an act of discrimination but a reflection of the owners' religious and moral beliefs.

Vanessa Willock asked the studio, Elane Photography, in 2006 about taking pictures of a same-gender ceremony but was told it handled only traditional weddings. When her partner contacted the studio without revealing her sexual orientation, she was given a price list and sent a follow-up email.

Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled that Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act and ordered it to pay nearly $7,000 in legal fees. A district court later upheld the commission's ruling.

Appellate court Judge Tim Garcia said a 1981 state Supreme Court case expanded the concept of public accommodation to include nontraditional and non-historic businesses. The opinion is in line with a national trend, said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania School of Law professor who represented Willock on appeal.

"I really think what's most important about this case is that it is the first time (New Mexico) appellate courts have talked about scope of the statute in a really comprehensive way," he said.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based legal alliance of Christian attorneys and others that represented the studio, plans to appeal. Elane Photography argued that it provided discretionary, unique and expressive services that aren't a public accommodation under the Human Rights Act.

The studio asked hypothetically whether an African-American photographer would be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

The court responded: "The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected."

------

Information from: Albuquerque Journal, http://www.abqjournal.com

FWIW: same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in New Mexico, so this wasn't an issue of 'SSM' (referring to the specific civil contract of "marriage").

Though I am not a lawyer, I agree that it does seem to be an example where Anti-Discrimination Laws overrode a business owner's personal religious liberty.

The incident definitely presents a facet worth discussing: when should religious liberty trump anti-discrimination laws, and vice versa?

Daniel2

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I will pick one:

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.

B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

Well, hmm no one can actually answer "A" unless they have a situation like being held against their will. But everyone can answer "B" unless they are holding someone against their will. B also has the added "when did you stop beating your wife" effect for those icky religious types.

By not allowing me to select anything other than A or B when there are other answers I have been pushed into a false dichotomy.

I can see your point that it is a "dichotomy," given that the author only wrote two possible answers to that question.

However, I'm not sure where I can see that the dichotomy is "false."

Can you list another answer (perhaps we could call it "C"), which provides an alternative that the author didn't think of and isn't covered in answers "A" or "B", in such a way that answer "C" would display an additional aspect as relating to this particular question of religious liberty vs. 'being forced' to take/use birth control?

Daniel2

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

All of the questions are based on false dilemmas/dichotomies. You know that the world don't work that way, Danny Boy!

I agree that false dilemmas/dichotomies aren't reflective of reality and aren't helpful.

As I've mentioned to Mansquatch, I'm curious to discuss how this author's dichotomies are "false."

Daniel2

Edited September 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[USU78]

Assuming your referring to this incident?:

FWIW: same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in New Mexico, so this wasn't an issue of 'SSM' (referring to the specific civil contract of "marriage").

Though I am not a lawyer, I agree that it does seem to be an example where Anti-Discrimination Laws overrode a business owner's personal religious liberty.

The incident definitely presents a facet worth discussing: when should religious liberty trump anti-discrimination laws, and vice versa?

Daniel2

Perhaps another thread? Don't want your present one getting bogged down.

[cinepro]

I can see your point that it is a "dichotomy," given that the author only wrote two possible answers to that question.

However, I'm not sure where I can see that the dichotomy is "false."

Can you list another answer (perhaps we could call it "C"), which provides an alternative that the author didn't think of and isn't covered in answers "A" or "B", in such a way that answer "C" would display an additional aspect as relating to this particular question of religious liberty vs. 'being forced' to take/use birth control?

Daniel2

I'm not Catholic, but it's my understanding that birth control is against their religion, so they might find it objectionable that the government takes money forcibly from Catholics via the tax code and then buys birth control with that money and gives it to other people (or supports organizations the provide abortions, which, as an LDS, I am opposed to).

If it is a "religious freedom" to not be forced to give your money to groups that promote behaviors that are against your religion, then that would be one religious freedom that is being infringed upon.

As a libertarian at heart (and mind), I am sympathetic to the "quiz" in the original post, but the question on birth control did betray a lack of clear thinking on the author's part.

Edited September 6, 2012 by cinepro

[Mansquatch]

I can see your point that it is a "dichotomy," given that the author only wrote two possible answers to that question.

However, I'm not sure where I can see that the dichotomy is "false."

Can you list another answer (perhaps we could call it "C"), which provides an alternative that the author didn't think of and isn't covered in answers "A" or "B", in such a way that answer "C" would display an additional aspect as relating to this particular question of religious liberty vs. 'being forced' to take/use birth control?

Daniel2

C) I am being forced to pay for birth control when my religious views teach that it is evil.

D) I have been forced to pay for abortions in Washington D.C. even though I view it as evil.

When there are only two options given and one or more unlisted, correct answers exist the dichotomy is, by definition, "false".