Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[CommunicatorIC]

Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In my opinion the following cross-post is very important.

As noted elsewhere, did you know that it is now legal for Scientologists to discriminate against psychiatrists in Indiana?

Scientology and Religious Freedom Restoration Act

https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/scientology-and-religious-freedom-reformation-act/

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

The blowback over Indiana governor Pence’s signing into law ‘The Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ has gone viral. Prominent citizens, politicians and human rights groups are aghast as the act’s potential for instituting discrimination against those who don’t toe the line to fundamentalist Christian sexual orientation standards. In defense of signing the act into law Indiana’s governor Pence has said it was based on the 1993 federal ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act.’ See New York Times for more on the Act.

What perhaps few know is that one of the most energetic proponents of the federal act that serves as Indiana’s model was none other than the church of Scientology. Scientology crows about its achievement on its own website:

“In 1991, Scientologists supported passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law on November 16, 1993. The Church of Scientology International was an active member of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, a broad-based religious and civil liberties group that strenuously worked for passage of the act.” Scientology website

http://www.authenticscientology.org/page23.htm

Scientology was so involved in its passage that its president was invited to the White House for the President Clinton’s signing of the original federal act. (President Heber C. Jentzsch crowed about it on Larry King Live)

What scientology doesn’t tout is that it shamelessly exploited the Act even before its final enactment. As it was wending its way through Congress, which scientology was directly and indirectly lobbying, scientology was using its imminent passage as leverage in obtaining tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service.

Scientology has used the federal Act for more than two decades to not only discriminate against the LGBT community, but also to immunize itself against charges ranging from human trafficking, to wrongful death, to fraud.

Scientology cited to the act in successfully dismissing criminal charges against it in the case of Lisa McPherson, a 36-year old woman who died in scientology’s custody on its premises. St Petersburg Times

Recently scientology successfully argued for dismissal of a high profile lawsuit for fraud brought by former members in Tampa Florida, citing to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Underground Bunker

Coincidentally, the highly publicized documentary ‘Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief’ premieres this Sunday on HBO. Its director and producer have both been quoted far and wide of late questioning how scientology gets away with the abuses they chronicle in the film (including its tax exempt status). They need only examine more closely the current media fire emanating in Indiana to find a considerable part of the answer. Folks concerned with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act who look deeper might find that it potentially carries far more grave consequences than currently meet the eye.

* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

 

[JustSheila]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration



Marty posted this? Good on 'im!

What a great smackdown. Cheers, Marty.

The cult writes its own laws under false pretenses, then cites them in court to defend its abuse. How ignorant are these politicians and judges to think that there was ever any interest in other religions, rights, or anything but promoting and continuing COS' slave labour, human trafficking and other abuses?

I notice that COS and OSA have been working overtime to mess with Marty by posting heaps of fake blogs and slander when his name is Googled. Perhaps Anons can assist in some way?

This blog article is important.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration



There have already been some really good comments made on his blog (I never thought I'd ever say that) ... well worth a look.

I bet the cofs wish Marty was still on "their" side.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

Marty posted this? Good on 'im!

What a great smackdown. Cheers, Marty.

The cult writes its own laws under false pretenses, then cites them in court to defend its abuse. How ignorant are these politicians and judges to think that there was ever any interest in other religions, rights, or anything but promoting and continuing COS' slave labour, human trafficking and other abuses?

I notice that COS and OSA have been working overtime to mess with Marty by posting heaps of fake blogs and slander when his name is Googled. Perhaps Anons can assist in some way?

This blog article is important.

This is not the first time Mark has related Scientology issues to larger Church / State issues, and to issues concerning the far Christian Right.

He has always, in addition, been attuned to how the Church of Scientology has allied itself with the Christian Right based on such issues.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

I agree with Justice Stevens regarding the unconstitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010411000039/http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1gupta.html

....... Justice Stevens, concurs with Kennedy on the decision, but takes a different angle at the unconstitutionality of the RFRA. Stevens explains that the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a 'law respecting an establishment of religion' that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Because the RFRA allows for specific religions to obtain rights beyond the rights given to regular citizens, he concludes the act must consequently go beyond simple freedom of religion, since it establishes special provisions for religious groups. Stevens uses the case of Wallace v. Jaffree27 as a precedent for this line of thought and concludes that "governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment."28

and....

...It is from this circular power struggle between the Courts and Congress that much of the dissenting opinion involving Boerne v. Flores arises. If one takes a look at the law from a more religious point of view, rather than strictly as a breach in the 14th Amendment much larger issues arise, as to what the interpretation of the freedom of religion clause should be. As Justice O'Connor states in her opinion:

"I agree with the Court that the issue before us is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a proper exercise of Congress' power to enforce §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But as a yardstick for measuring the constitutionality of RFRA, the Court uses its holding in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the decision that prompted Congress to enact RFRA as a means of more rigorously enforcing the Free Exercise Clause. I remain of the view that Smith was wrongly decided, and I would use this case to reexamine the Court's holding there."29

If one assumes the Smith ruling and its interpretation was incorrect, as O'Connor does, it can also be interpreted that Congress' intention in enacting the RFRA was "remedial" in nature.

She goes on to cite numerous Supreme Court interpretations of the free exercise clause to which the Smith decision is contradictory or "gravely at odds." It is for this reason that she encourages the court to grant the Smith decision another evaluation, because it does not "faithfully serve the purpose of the Constitution,"30 she argues.

............ Clearly the reasoning behind the decision that the RFRA is unconstitutional is very complex. In a sense, there are two major issues at play. First, one must interpret the Constitution as defining the balance of power among the branches of the government. To this day the rights and duties Congress has in upholding the Constitution and amending law are still unclear. While Marbury v. Madison has long been accepted as giving the Courts the ultimate say on the law, the definition of Congress's power "to enforce" in the 14th Amendment is still confused and disputed.

Second, one must interpret the first amendment as the Court has done in the past century, and its freedom of religion clause. There remains "intolerable tension in free-exercise law,"31 largely due to disagreements over what religious acts and beliefs are covered under the first amendment clause.

Obviously, religion cannot be used as an excuse for disobeying religiously neutral laws, and there is a line at which acts committed in the name of religious beliefs, and laws established for everyone in the country collide.

The Supreme Court and Congress through their judgments and bills are both trying to redraw and redefine this line, yet they meet increasing perplexity and conflict in determining what the Constitution's free exercise clause really means.


============

This is why I say the 1st amendment needs to be overhauled. Madison saw this and discussed it during the formation of the constitution. For example he argued that "...Besides, [pg 88] Religion itself may become a motive to persecution& oppression. These observations are verified by the Histories of every country antient & modern....."

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

This is why I say the 1st amendment needs to be overhauled. Madison saw this and discussed it during the formation of the constitution. For example he argued that "...Besides, [pg 88] Religion itself may become a motive to persecution& oppression. These observations are verified by the Histories of every country antient & modern....."

Your entire comment is excellent. I want note one thing. The quotation from Madison appears to come from Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.
http://ashbrook.org/library/document/notes-of-debates/

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

Your entire comment is excellent. I want note one thing. The quotation from Madison appears to come from Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.
http://ashbrook.org/library/document/notes-of-debates/

Yes it does and thanks for adding that link although I obtained the docs from The Project Gutenberg ebooks https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page A great resource.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

I agree with Justice Stevens regarding the unconstitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010411000039/http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1gupta.html

....... Justice Stevens, concurs with Kennedy on the decision, but takes a different angle at the unconstitutionality of the RFRA. Stevens explains that the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a 'law respecting an establishment of religion' that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Because the RFRA allows for specific religions to obtain rights beyond the rights given to regular citizens, he concludes the act must consequently go beyond simple freedom of religion, since it establishes special provisions for religious groups. Stevens uses the case of Wallace v. Jaffree27 as a precedent for this line of thought and concludes that "governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment."28

and....

...It is from this circular power struggle between the Courts and Congress that much of the dissenting opinion involving Boerne v. Flores arises. If one takes a look at the law from a more religious point of view, rather than strictly as a breach in the 14th Amendment much larger issues arise, as to what the interpretation of the freedom of religion clause should be. As Justice O'Connor states in her opinion:

"I agree with the Court that the issue before us is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a proper exercise of Congress' power to enforce §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But as a yardstick for measuring the constitutionality of RFRA, the Court uses its holding in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the decision that prompted Congress to enact RFRA as a means of more rigorously enforcing the Free Exercise Clause. I remain of the view that Smith was wrongly decided, and I would use this case to reexamine the Court's holding there."29

If one assumes the Smith ruling and its interpretation was incorrect, as O'Connor does, it can also be interpreted that Congress' intention in enacting the RFRA was "remedial" in nature.

She goes on to cite numerous Supreme Court interpretations of the free exercise clause to which the Smith decision is contradictory or "gravely at odds." It is for this reason that she encourages the court to grant the Smith decision another evaluation, because it does not "faithfully serve the purpose of the Constitution,"30 she argues.

............ Clearly the reasoning behind the decision that the RFRA is unconstitutional is very complex. In a sense, there are two major issues at play. First, one must interpret the Constitution as defining the balance of power among the branches of the government. To this day the rights and duties Congress has in upholding the Constitution and amending law are still unclear. While Marbury v. Madison has long been accepted as giving the Courts the ultimate say on the law, the definition of Congress's power "to enforce" in the 14th Amendment is still confused and disputed.

Second, one must interpret the first amendment as the Court has done in the past century, and its freedom of religion clause. There remains "intolerable tension in free-exercise law,"31 largely due to disagreements over what religious acts and beliefs are covered under the first amendment clause.

Obviously, religion cannot be used as an excuse for disobeying religiously neutral laws, and there is a line at which acts committed in the name of religious beliefs, and laws established for everyone in the country collide.

The Supreme Court and Congress through their judgments and bills are both trying to redraw and redefine this line, yet they meet increasing perplexity and conflict in determining what the Constitution's free exercise clause really means.


============

This is why I say the 1st amendment needs to be overhauled. Madison saw this and discussed it during the formation of the constitution. For example he argued that "...Besides, [pg 88] Religion itself may become a motive to persecution& oppression. These observations are verified by the Histories of every country antient & modern....."

May I respectfully suggest you consider posting your excellent comment as a comment on Mark Rathbun's article?

 

[JustSheila]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

This is not the first time Mark has related Scientology issues to larger Church / State issues, and to issues concerning the far Christian Right.

He has always, in addition, been attuned to how the Church of Scientology has allied itself with the Christian Right based on such issues.

True. IMHO, this is one of his best blogs, as he relates how this came about and its relation to Lisa McPherson's case.

Terrific comment on the blog of how COS managed to get White House interest by using an old mate of Bill Clinton's too.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Re: Mark Rathbun: Scientology, Gay Rights, Indiana and Religious Freedom Restoration

May I respectfully suggest you consider posting your excellent comment as a comment on Mark Rathbun's article?

I added a bit of preamble and then included my post. It is waiting moderation. (and I my ISP provider here frequently drops my connection over the last few days.)