Iowa Court: Church's fear of prosecution is 'objectively reasonable'

[Michie]

A church's lawsuit may go forward because it reasonably feared that Iowa's strict antidiscrimination law would create legal penalties for its preaching and for having single sex bathrooms and showers...

Continued below.
http://m.ncregister.com/51284/d

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

This news arrives from Iowa of all places.
And opponents of the faith scoff at the evidences of soft persecution against Christians in America.

Objectively reasonable. At least the judge warned the community of Christ.

God be with his people and his church. Amen.

 

[pdudgeon]

it's a good thing that it is going forward. that pamphlet is definitely stepping over the line by telling them what they can do in their own building and on private property.

 

[Hank77]

it's a good thing that it is going forward. that pamphlet is definitely stepping over the line by telling them what they can do in their own building and on private property.

The pamphlet has been revised to specifically say that churches are exempt for this law, if I remember correctly.

 

[pdudgeon]

The pamphlet has been revised to specifically say that churches are exempt for this law, if I remember correctly.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/io...-churches-on-transgender-issue-after-backlash
[quote:
"First Liberty was cautious in its response.

“We’re taking the state at its word that it will not encroach on the church in any way,” Chelsey Youman, chief of staff & counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in astatement. “However, if it does in the future, we stand ready to use the full force of the law to protect the church’s free exercise of religion and free speech under the Constitution.”

“I accept the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s public apology, with clear reservations,” Cornerstone Pastor Cary Gordon said. “We will continue to monitor their activities and stand ready to defend all churches at any time.”

“What remains is still vague and alarming,” Perkins said. “What constitutes ‘non-religious activities,’ and who decides what those are?”

ADF rejected the commission’s remedy on the whole, saying the modified brochure “doesn’t change bad law,” and that its suit would continue.

“Cosmetic changes to the alarming language in one brochure won’t fix the unconstitutionality of the Iowa Civil Rights Act,” ADF legal counsel Christiana Holcomb said. “Churches should be free to communicate their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship according to their faith without fearing government punishment.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission had no constitutional basis for including explicit threats against houses of worship in any of its materials.” /quote]

 

[Maddox]

"As the court found, government bureaucrats don’t get to decide which church activities have a religious purpose; that’s for the church to decide.”

That is insane talk, with that you could justify just about anything from selling drugs to female genital mutilation.

“Churches should be free to talk about their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship according to their faith without fearing government punishment,”

Change the word churches to mosques and imagine some rousing sermons from the Koran supporting ISIS ideology and realize that you can't do anything about it because everyone has equal religious rights and nobody would like to do anything that smacks of "persecution".

 

[pdudgeon]

and there's also this from the same previousy quoted source.
[quote:
The brochure’s controversial content has also been seen by Christians as prime example of current codified attacks on religious freedom, demonstrating how the agenda is not limited to Christians declining to bake cakes, produce floral arrangements, photograph or host so-called same-sex “weddings,” but that it hasincluded pastors all along./quote]

 

[pat34lee]

The pamphlet has been revised to specifically say that churches are exempt for this law, if I remember correctly.

It's still just as bad. They can always come back in
a year or two and say, all the people here except
the churches have to follow this law. It's time to
remove their exemption.

 

[Hank77]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...n-revises-church-exemption-language/86879100/

The new brochure replaced that section with the following language: “Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public … the law may apply to an independent day care or polling places located on the premises of the place of worship.”

Without including this word 'independent' they could use this law against Christian private schools or 'daycare centers' and pre-K church run programs. Two of my grandchild attended a pre-K program run by the church.

 

[Gnarwhal]

A church's lawsuit may go forward because it reasonably feared that Iowa's strict antidiscrimination law would create legal penalties for its preaching and for having single sex bathrooms and showers...

Continued below.
http://m.ncregister.com/51284/d

Iowa's not one of those states that I think of when I imagine states with "strict antidiscrimination laws".

 

[Hank77]

That is insane talk, with that you could justify just about anything from selling drugs to female genital mutilation.

I don't think that religious freedom includes things that are established criminal laws. At one time many, dare I say most, felt that it was OK for a spouse to physically beat their spouse but there are now criminal laws that say they can't. So a church could still preach that it is OK to do but the perp, would be subject to arrest and punishment under the law.
As far as preaching terrorism, they would bring themselves under investigation, strict scrutiny, and if not a citizen deportation. If anyone they encouraged to do such a thing and the person did, I would think they could be charge as a conspirator to the crime.
Although some of the native peoples do have legal rights to use a plant that is considered a drug, in their religious ceremonies.

 

[Maddox]

I don't think that religious freedom includes things that are established criminal laws.

You might be surprised...in states like California

"California state laws criminalize the conduct of a parent who willfully withholds care, food, shelter, medical services, or other remedial care from a child without a lawful excuse. California includes prayer or spiritual treatment by an accredited practitioner of a religious denomination or recognized church as "remedial care" for the purposes of state law."

So your local pastor giving spiritual treatment works just as well as antibiotics in the eyes of the law. If your kid dies because faith healing didn't work, well too bad I guess. Maybe next kid gets real medical treatment. How screwed up is that ?

 

[Hank77]

You might be surprised...in states like California

"California state laws criminalize the conduct of a parent who willfully withholds care, food, shelter, medical services, or other remedial care from a child without a lawful excuse. California includes prayer or spiritual treatment by an accredited practitioner of a religious denomination or recognized church as "remedial care" for the purposes of state law."

So your local pastor giving spiritual treatment works just as well as antibiotics in the eyes of the law. If your kid dies because faith healing didn't work, well too bad I guess. Maybe next kid gets real medical treatment. How screwed up is that ?

What is their definition of 'accredited'?
What does the state consider a 'lawful excuse'?

It says that medical services cannot be withheld without a 'lawful excuse'. As far as I know there is not any 'accreditation' for faith healing. The pastor may be accredited as a child psychologist though or a medical professional.

It is hard for me to believe that CA is going to allow parents such freedom as you say, unless the very wealthy 'Scientologists' have a lot of political power in CA.

 

[Fantine]

Any transgender person I've met (and I haven't met that many) usually dresses like the gender (s)he identifies with. For that reason I think I have probably been going to public restrooms with transgender individuals for decades--and if these laws hadn't been passed, this would have continued without anyone the wiser.

I don't normally scrutinize people in restrooms carefully enough to wonder if they are transgender or not.

 

[Maddox]

We can call - and google - them as religious exemption laws and there are wide variety of them.

Basically they can give a parent a right to refuse stuff like blood transfusion even if doing so puts the child in mortal danger.

Why are there religious exemption laws ? Why should something that has been made illegal like child neglect or child abuse suddenly be ok if you can demonstrate your that tenets of your religion require it.

 

[pat34lee]

Why are there religious exemption laws ? Why should something that has been made illegal like child neglect or child abuse suddenly be ok if you can demonstrate your that tenets of your religion require it.

You are looking at it backward here. Why should something
that people have practiced as their religion for centuries or
more be suddenly outlawed because some scientist or doctor
thinks they know more than God?

 

[Maddox]

Maybe because we have come to realize that stuff like human sacrifices, eating your dead enemy, keeping slaves, mutilating your daughters genitals, beating and subjugating women, stoning people, killing albinos, burning witches and all the other good stuff that

"people have practiced as their religion for centuries"

are inhuman practices that no longer serve any purpose and have no place in civilized societies?

 

[pat34lee]

are inhuman practices that no longer serve any purpose and have no place in civilized societies?

Which inhuman practices have you seen practiced by Christians
(or others) recently that have no place in civilized societies? The
only ones I can think of all come from one religious group. Muslims.

 

[Maddox]

Well usually female genital mutilations are not done in shopping malls so can't say I have seen any nor Jewish rabbi performing metzitzah b'peh.

I haven't seen child dying of diabetes or other sickness because a religious parent denied the diagnosis and resorted to faith healing.

Haven't seen ISIS chopping heads of unbelievers or Wahhabist Saudis cutting off hands because sharia is such a great way to promote joys of theocracy.

These things do happen and everyone interested can google them easily enough.

Instead of getting stuck on yet another list of morbid excesses of cultural and religious practices let's look at the underlying cause of why these things still exist.

Namely as you asked why should you give more credit to a doctor, scientist or engineer than God when dealing with matters that relate to their area of expertise.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." That sounds like a sensible approach. Give experts their due when they talk about their field of study.

God does not speak against science or medicine. People who interpret what God says do.

Neither the Bible or other holy books are meant to teach anything about physics, medicine, evolution or any other scientific theories and applying these tenets of faith in modern times are becoming increasingly futile and even bit comical.

When council of old theocrats are deciding how to handle proper ways to bow your heads to Mecca when Muslim astronauts are in orbit or how to link evil Pokemons to religious scriptures you can tell organized religion is in trouble.

Is it any wonder that people are getting more secular after finally realizing how out of the touch these people are.

Religion and faith alone don't keep airplane in the air, they don't kill bacteria better than antibiotics or design earthquake resistant skyscrapers and they really don't have that great track record of treating your fellow human beings with dignity, understanding and acceptance either.

Which kind demonstrates why religious exemption laws are bad and instead of Christians being persecuted like some are loudly claiming here these laws actually give people more rights to oppress, harm and discriminate their fellow man under the guise of religion.

How anyone can claim these laws uphold the values the Christ taught is beyond me.

 

[pat34lee]

Namely as you asked why should you give more credit to a doctor, scientist or engineer than God when dealing with matters that relate to their area of expertise.

Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." That sounds like a sensible approach. Give experts their due when they talk about their field of study.

God does not speak against science or medicine. People who interpret what God says do.

Actually, what we call medicine today is two different fields. More
when you count specialties, but two basics. Doctoring and medicating.

Doctoring includes physical work. Setting bones, surgery, etc.
May not be the right word, but close enough.

Medicating is drugging people. The bible does talk about that.
Pharmakia (the same root word as pharmacy) is translated as
witchcraft in the NT. This is what the Greeks practiced and
handed down as modern medicine.

Too many doctors are in the pockets of pharmakia today. They
give out useless or harmful drugs to people who don't need
them. This include poisoning them with radiation and vaccines.
God made natural cures, and even better, ways to avoid most
diseases, including cancer.