Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
I guess that's the question I'm asking. WHAT, exactly, should be protected, and what shouldn't be? should a religious institution be UTTERLY exempt from ALL laws?
|
Obviously not. And that is the point bluntly stated by Scalia. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. That relationship is protected by religious freedom. Any relationship that man has with other people is determined by civil law. Religion cannot restrict or regulate any 'man to man' relationship. Religion cannot be imposed on any other person. Because religion is only a 'man to god' relationship.
Religious freedom: you can talk to and believe anything your god demands. But you cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else. A church imposing church doctrine on anyone else is discriminating based in religion. That is illegal.
Scalia made the point repeatedly. Any relationship between two people is defined by civil laws - not by religion. Unfortunately many give religion liberties it does not deserve.
A church is not a god and is not a religion. The church is only a religious consultant. An advisor. Someone that the individual hires to help him with his 'man to god' relationship.
BTW, this is the same church that said an organ transplant is a mortal sin. Ordered all people to not have organ transplants (after the first organ transplant - a kidney donated to his twin brother). The pope can deny himself a transplant if that is his religion. But the pope cannot impose his beliefs on anyone else - as Scalia notes. Religion must not exist beyond a 'man to god' relationship.