| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/06/terrifying-law-turns-michigan-into-theocracy/
Terrifying Law Turns Michigan Into A Theocracy — The Christian Right Is Coming For Your State Next
Author: Kerry-Anne December 6, 2014 11:51 am
One of the core tenets of the United States established by the Founding Fathers was the separation of Church and State — but an expanding Christian Right wants to turn the U.S. into a religious state, where ideology trumps law — and they just succeeded in Michigan.
As Politicus USA reports:
“Despite protections in the U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws, the past six years have seen an increase in religious fundamentalists claim they have theocratic authority to punish women, gays, and any American unwilling to comply with their theocratic edicts. It is apparent that Americans have no more constitutional protections from religious tyranny than unarmed African Americans have from racist cops shooting them with impunity. It is astonishing, but the extremist Christian fundamentalists are basing their punitive power on the religious freedom guarantee in the First Amendment; with Supreme Court approval.”
And this week, religious tyranny came to Michigan, with House Bill 5958, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This bill legalizes a Christian extremist’s religious freedom to discriminate, and commit other breaches in law and social mores. The law makes it legal to refuse service, deny employment, housing, and violate other citizens’ rights, any rights, if a theocrat claims it violates their religious freedom and objects on religious grounds.
As if this were not terrifying enough, our worst fears should be reserved for the Orwellian-titled “conscience clause.” This clause allows any Christian Fundamentalist working in the healthcare industry to cease a patient’s medical care if they claim their objection is founded on religious beliefs, and the Healthcare provider would be obliged to send a patient away. This would give legal cover to religious pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they “think” a person is gay, a woman is a single mother, or the patient is the “wrong religion.” It would also mean a first responder, whether law enforcement, fire protection, or ambulance personnel can use “religious objections” to refuse to provide service to a person or group they feel violates their religious beliefs.
This move to theocracy was entirely foreseeable, it’s not like we haven’t had due warning. In his 2005 book American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century American political writer Kevin Phillips provides a harsh critique of the past forty years of the Republican coalition in U.S. politics. He “presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed, and dangerous shortsightedness.”
Phillips points to three unifying themes holding this coalition together. First, its tie to oil and the role oil plays in American and world events. Second, to the coalition of social conservatives, Evangelicals and Pentecostals in this Republican coalition. Finally, he points to the “debt culture” of this coalition, and to a coming “debt bubble” related to the debt of the U.S. Government and U.S. consumers. In short, he argues, the U.S. has become the very thing it existed to escape — a theocratic colonial juggernaut in the shape of former world powers such as the Roman Empire and the British Empire as they declined from their peaks and fell into disarray.
One only has to take a glimpse at the nation today to see that Phillips was onto something — just look at what happened to the Pledge of Allegiance. Written in August, 1892, by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy, the original Pledge read:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
But in 1954, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to insert God into the Pledge. He claimed this would mark out the U.S. as a Christian nation in contrast to Cold War Russia as a Communist nation — as if the two were mutually exclusive, and morally opposed. Bellamy’s daughter objected to this alteration, which remains intact, and reads:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Over the years since, the Christian Right has continued to insert itself into the democratic institutions and processes of the state. Since the 1980’s, groups like the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have sought to turn their religious ideologies into law, with some success. The installation of born-again Christian George W. Bush in the White House saw the U.S. launch a Holy War against half the Muslim world, stalled U.S. progress in Stem Cell research, while the toxic combination of oil and debt crashed not only the U.S., but the global economy in the Financial Crisis of 2007/8.
Since then, we have seen the Christian Right launch a war against women through the Republican Party — limiting access to abortion and birth control, and lobbying against legislation to outlaw spousal rape.
And now, this concerted effort to enshrine the right to avoid anti-discrimination legislation by turning the U.S. into a theocracy, one state at a time.
There is a compelling reason that religious ideology should not trump law, and before he became one of the Christian Right’s favorite Supreme Court justices, Justice Antonin Scalia saw it too. In fact, writing for the majority in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia said that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals to break the law. He said:
“We have never held that an individual’s beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate.”
Scalia said it would be “courting anarchy” to create exceptions every time a religious group claims that a law infringes on its religious freedom.
But Scalia and the rest of the Christian Right have squared that circle; they would rather live in religious theocracy than a secular democracy — whatever the consequences. The battle for America is on. Those citizens who want to live in a democracy will have to fight for it. |
|
|
Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:46 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/04/michigan-religious-freedom-bill-moves-house/19889979/
Religious freedom bill passes out of Michigan House
By Kathleen Gray, Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau 6:04 p.m. EST December 4, 2014
LANSING — A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs was put on a fast track Thursday, passing out of the House Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives on straight party line votes Thursday.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents will claim but merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.
He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.
"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."
But opponents said that's exactly what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is, especially since a companion bill that would have expanded Michigan's civil rights acts to the LGBT community was declared dead by Bolger after a committee couldn't get enough votes to move the bills to the full House on Wednesday.
"I'm sad and I think it's a shame that the Elliott Larsen path was closed yesterday," Bolger said. "But this bill should be pursued."
Opponents, however, said there are already plenty of protections for religious beliefs.
"The free exercise of religion is one of the most basic principles in our state and federal constitutions," said state Rep. Vicki Barnett, D-Farmington Hills. "This bill moves us in a new and unchartered directions. It requires me and others to practice the faith of our employers, grocers and pharmacists."
Susan Grettenberger, a Central Michigan University professor and social worker, said the religious freedom bill could have seriously harmful consequences, giving an example of a social worker who refused to counsel people based on religious beliefs that didn't support homosexuality.
"Social workers who are opposed to war on religious ground could refuse to serve military members," she said. "If their religion excludes the use of alcohol, they could refuse a client with substance abuse problems."
But constitutional law expert William Wagner, a supporter of the bill, which passed the House on a 59-50 party-line vote, said those examples weren't valid.
"This is about asserting a religious belief against a government action," he said, not between individuals. "The question is, are we still going to be tolerant of religious communities."
And Tom Hickson of the Michigan Catholic Conference, added: "A Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act is good for tolerance and diversity, it is good for individual and religious liberties, and it is for the common good of society."
The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, which opposes the bill, wasn't given the opportunity to testify during the committee hearing, but spokeswoman Leslee Fritz said the government action phrase was taken out of portions of the legislation passed by the committee.
"The overwhelming concern we have is the intersection of this legislation and the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act," she said. "This legislation would undermine the protections provided in Elliott Larsen."
Amendments offered by Democrats would have required: the law to state clearly that the bill would not interfere with the protections offered by the state's civil rights act; that a person asserting a sincerely held religious belief claim provide proof either through tithing to their church or evidence of community service; or that local communities be allowed to pass their own ordinances.
All the amendments failed and all the Democrats on the committee and in the full House opposed the bill, while all the Republicans supported it.
The bill - HB 5958 - now moves to the state Senate, where Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, said his caucus will take a look at the legislation.
The House also passed a separate package of bills, on mostly party-line votes, that would allow adoption agencies to refuse services to people if that violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. Those bills also now move to the Senate.
Contact Kathleen Gray: 517-372-8661, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:52 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-measure-moves-forward-michigan
‘Religious freedom’ measure moves forward in Michigan
12/06/14 01:47 PM—Updated 12/06/14 05:29 PM
By Emma Margolin
Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed a controversial religious freedom bill, teeing up what civil liberties advocates fear will be another wave of GOP-backed legislation that could cripple LGBT rights.
The bill, HB 5958, zipped through the House Judiciary Committee Thursday morning and then the full chamber on a 59-50 party-line vote – all in one day. It now heads to the Republican-controlled state Senate for consideration, and then to the desk of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.
Also known as the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act” (RFRA,) HB 5958 is modeled after a federal law at issue in the Supreme Court’s notorious Hobby Lobby ruling. That decision determined that closely held corporations, like the evangelical-owned craft chain, wouldn’t have to cover the cost of contraception for their employees based on the owners’ sincerely held religious objections. Nineteen states have adopted RFRA laws that mirror the federal measure, which the high court determined in 1997 did not apply to the states.
Related: “The law that could sink birth control coverage”
Like the federal RFRA, Michigan’s bill protects people from laws that substantially burden their sincerely held religious beliefs, unless the government can prove that the offending law serves a compelling interest and accomplishes that goal using the least restrictive means possible. President Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law in 1993 as a protective measure for religious minorities, something Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger – HB 5958’s sponsor – now points to in the face of accusations that his bill is extreme.
Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger talks with reporters in his Capitol office on Nov. 12, 2014 about the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (David Eggert/AP)
Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger talks with reporters in his Capitol office on Nov. 12, 2014 about the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Photo by David Eggert/AP
“Do you think that Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were extremists?” Bolger said in an interview with msnbc. “We modeled [this bill] directly after what they did. I’m baffled to hear that what we’re doing is out of line.”
But opponents say otherwise. While Bolger insists the bill is meant to protect, say, the Muslim butcher who wants to prepare food in line with halal practices, or the Jewish mother who doesn’t want an autopsy performed on her son, civil liberties advocates warn it could be used as a defense for the landlord who wants to evict a gay tenant, or the pharmacist who doesn’t want to provide birth control, all because of sincerely held religious beliefs.
In some of the ugliest scenarios, critics say the measure could allow Catholic-owned hospitals to refuse admittance to people who need a procedure that violates the institution’s religious directives, such as a pre-viability pregnancy termination in the case of a miscarriage. In another instance, opponents foresee the bill being cited as a legal defense in domestic violence cases.
“In many religions, it’s OK for a man to beat his wife,” Brooke Tucker, staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan, told msnbc. “Based on language in this bill, all he has to say is my religion allows me to do this.”
In the last legislative session, religious freedom measures were percolating in more than a dozen states, fueled in large part by high-profile discrimination claims such as one in Colorado – where a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple – and another in New Mexico – where a photographer refused to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony. Both of those business owners ended up losing in court, having violated their states’ non-discrimination laws. (New Mexico and Colorado happen to be two of the 18 states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; most states, including Michigan, have no such protections.)
“Do you think that Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were extremists? We modeled [this bill] directly after what they did.”
Jase Bolger, Michigan House Speaker
For the most part, the religious freedom movement lost too – only it was in the court of public opinion. Under enormous pressure from major corporations like Apple, Delta, American Airlines, and the NFL, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year was forced to kill a religious freedom measure that passed her state’s Republican-controlled legislature. The move effectively stopped similar bills dead in their tracks, save one in Mississippi, where a state RFRA went into effect on July 1.
The Hobby Lobby decision, however, as well as the Republican sweep in November’s midterm elections, seems to be encouraging “religious freedom” supporters to try again.
“We are very concerned as marriage equality becomes a reality that proponents of these bills are going to regroup and pour more resources into it, and that the push will be even more aggressive,” said Eunice Rho, an advocacy and policy counsel with the ACLU. “We’re certainly expecting [religious freedom bills] to be a very real threat in the upcoming year.”
Related: “Religious Freedom’ strikes back against marriage equality gains”
Marriage equality is now legal in 35 states, including one in the Deep South. But though same-sex couples can wed in South Carolina, lawmakers there have introduced legislation that would explicitly allow any employee of a clerk’s office to deny gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses on religious grounds. In Texas – another Deep South state that could soon see marriage equality – lawmakers have pre-filed a measure that would enshrine the state’s existing RFRA statue into the Texas Constitution. Unlike the statutory RFRA, Rho says, Texas’ proposed constitutional amendment does not include a provision barring its use as a defense in civil rights law violations, making it considerably more broad and potentially harmful to the LGBT community.
Bolger denies that his bill would be the “parade of horribles” he’s heard. He insists it would simply give people the freedom to practice their faith in public and add another layer of protection to their First Amendment free exercise guarantees – much like how the Open Meetings Act builds off freedom of the press protections, he said.
Additionally, Bolger stressed that the law is meant to exist between an individual and a government action, not between two individuals like, for example, the religious landlord and his gay tenant. The landlord may try to use RFRA as a defense in court for evicting his tenant based on sexual orientation, but that doesn’t mean he’d win, Bolger explained.
The ACLU, however, says that interpretation is off base.
“One of the ways that anti-discrimination laws work is that you have government agencies going after the people accused of discrimination. In that case, it would be a ‘government action,’” said Tucker. “For the landlord who violates the Fair Housing Act, a lot of times it’s the government who goes after him. The government takes a lot of steps to protect people from discrimination by others, and that’s something that could be severely impacted by this bill.”
Furthermore, she said, even if the government is able to prove it had a compelling interest in protecting the tenant from eviction on the basis of his sexual orientation, and that the non-discrimination ordinance was the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal, the effect would still be a massive clog in the court system, and the tenant would be homeless for the duration of the proceedings.
“What RFRA will do is give businesses and landlords the opportunity to contest everything in court.”
Brooke Tucker, ACLU
“What RFRA will do is give businesses and landlords the opportunity to contest everything in court, and force individuals who are now able to live discrimination-free lives to demonstrate that the government has a compelling interest in making those landlords act in a nondiscriminatory fashion,” said Tucker. “Even if that individual prevails, he will have spent a lot of time and money, and may be out of a job or out of a home while he’s waiting.”
Adding to the backlash against RFRA’s rapid advancement in Michigan, the state House this week also passed a bill allowing adoption agencies to refuse service to people if doing so would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. If signed into law, LGBT advocates fear it will be used to turn away same-sex couples hoping to become parents – already a difficult feat in Michigan, as the state’s adoption code does not allow same-sex couples to jointly adopt. Additionally, a different measure that would expand the state’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include non-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian Michiganders seems to have died after a contentious hearing in the House Commerce Committee.
Bolger supported the expansion of the Elliott-Larsen Act to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, but opposed the push to include specific protections for transgender individuals. He originally introduced the state RFRA along with the expansion of civil rights protections to “provide the right balance” between respecting one another and not forcing people to violate their core beliefs, he told msnbc. Now, only RFRA is moving forward.
“When I had announced my support for the two [measures,] I said they should be placed on separate but parallel paths,” said Bolger. “I was sad and it’s a shame that the path had ended for the expansion of the civil rights act, but that doesn’t mean that the path should end for RFRA.”
Though Michigan won’t be getting statewide protections for the LGBT community, it does lead the nation in municipal ordinances barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Thirty-six municipalities currently have such ordinances in place, protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination in employment and housing. But advocates worry that RFRA, if passed, will undermine those strides for equality.
“We have at this point set the standard in the country for casting local nondiscrimination policies,” Emily Dievendorf, director of policy at Equality Michigan, told msnbc. “We do believe that RFRA was introduced specifically to negate the progress that the speaker saw us possibly making.” |
|
|
|
Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
