A well-organized, well-funded effort is underway to interpret religious freedom as a weapon that can be used to impose beliefs on others. We discuss how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is being weaponized.
I have been a member of Americans United, that deals in 1st amendment religious cases, for years. They particularly defend the freedom from other peoples religion. In general, our constitutional rights are not total and absolute, they are limited by infringing on other folks rights. In general, the strategy of the Christian Right, is to move or eliminate that boundary where someone else’s freedom of, or from religion would be a constraint. The poorly selected SC is all too often on the side of Christian nationalists, trying to push their religious beliefs on others. This is the crux of the wesponization.
In my naive perspective, something that the courts ought to recognize is that some aspects of religion are "practiced at home or in the place of worship (if any)", and some are practiced in public spaces where they affect other folks.
In the former case, government should probably not intrude unless someone's faith requires ritualistic cannibalism of their own family members. Or something similarly extreme that harms individuals (even if it harms other believers).
In the latter case, the courts probably should weigh whether it is necessary, not just approved by a majority, for one person to practice their faith in a way that directly harms anyone or infringes upon anyone else's religious freedom.
In this case, Thuggee behavior of robbing and murdering travelers is not OK, even if that is a fundamental tenet of worshipping Kali. But wearing a yarmulke in public is fine, because it harms nobody and doesn't restrict anyone else's ability to pursue their faith.
I have been a member of Americans United, that deals in 1st amendment religious cases, for years. They particularly defend the freedom from other peoples religion. In general, our constitutional rights are not total and absolute, they are limited by infringing on other folks rights. In general, the strategy of the Christian Right, is to move or eliminate that boundary where someone else’s freedom of, or from religion would be a constraint. The poorly selected SC is all too often on the side of Christian nationalists, trying to push their religious beliefs on others. This is the crux of the wesponization.
In my naive perspective, something that the courts ought to recognize is that some aspects of religion are "practiced at home or in the place of worship (if any)", and some are practiced in public spaces where they affect other folks.
In the former case, government should probably not intrude unless someone's faith requires ritualistic cannibalism of their own family members. Or something similarly extreme that harms individuals (even if it harms other believers).
In the latter case, the courts probably should weigh whether it is necessary, not just approved by a majority, for one person to practice their faith in a way that directly harms anyone or infringes upon anyone else's religious freedom.
In this case, Thuggee behavior of robbing and murdering travelers is not OK, even if that is a fundamental tenet of worshipping Kali. But wearing a yarmulke in public is fine, because it harms nobody and doesn't restrict anyone else's ability to pursue their faith.