Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Religious Freedom Restorate Acts (states)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Religious Freedom Restorate Acts (states)

    I believe eight states including Florida and Illinois (among others) have adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act after the US Supreme Court apparantly felt that the federal government couldn't impose this burden on the States -- but the States could if my information is correct. Anyhow, at least 8 states have adopted such an act afer the US Supreme Court declared the federal act unconstitutional. The law was first passed as a result of outrage over the arrest of native Americans who was denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using a banned drug in his worship.

    A pertinent provision follows: (from Illinois) Sec. 15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government may not
    substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden
    results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates
    that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a
    compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means
    of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
    (Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

    Earlier this evening I read on an INA section Without Shame page a quote from a federal judge which seemed to say that if several people wanted to "express" themselves with nudity, that might be constitutionally protected -- whereas a single person would not. That makes little sense to be but be it as it may.

    What does make sense to me is a careful study of the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, consultation with attorneys, and invoking ones religious freedoms (taking into account the concerns of others with differing views -- in other words move slowly at first). I believe that this could force localities to provide CO areas -- as the laws read it might permit nudity anywhere. The RFRA require laws to fall in order to protect religious liberty unless an insurmontable harm would be done to the community and there is no other solution (special areas is a solution).But if there is going to have to be a court case and the Florida law grants you reimbursement of all your legal fees if you prevail, it should be one step at a time in my opinion.

    I will be in California for 10 days so I won't be able to respond. But just go the Google and put in Religious Freedom Restoration Act and read the various acts.

    Christians who accept early Christian practice can surely make a good case. Public baths nude and mixed; nude and mixed baptisms, Jesus was crucified nude (sorry later painters covered him up), Isiah being directed by God to go nude for 3 years. And if you want more read Paul Bowman's book entitled Nakedness and the Bible.

    But the US Supreme Court has held in the case of Daniel (Pete) Seeger and Cassius Clay (conscientious objector cases in the 70's) that any strongly held belief system constitutes a religion -- sorry I don't have the cases before me.

    Give it thought, serious thought -- and your opinion please. I will try to read any responses tomorrow (Thursday) but will be 10 days before I get back to a computer.

    By the way the other states are Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and of course Florida. Florida, with its diverse population, very liberal Supreme Court which has ruled atleast twice that mere nudity is not a crime but counties keep trying new methods, is an ideal State to test the law and FS 761.04 statesThe prevailing plaintiff in any case (anticipates that plaintiffs will sue to enjoin counties and cities from preventing their actions);in an action or roceeding to enfordce a provision of this act is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be paid by the government.

    Our act applies to "all state law,and the implementation of that law ... stattory or otherwise. Government or state includes any branch, department, agen;cy, instrumentality, or official or othr erson acting under color of lawof the stte, a conty, special district, municipality, or any othe subdivision of the state. Pretty inclusive!

    These laws turn the burden of proof on the government, rather than on the individual once the RFRA is invoked. And the government must find the least restrictive means of fulfilling that compelling government interest.

    This law was supported by the far right and the far left and included the ACLU and the conservative Baptists.

  • #2
    I believe eight states including Florida and Illinois (among others) have adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act after the US Supreme Court apparantly felt that the federal government couldn't impose this burden on the States -- but the States could if my information is correct. Anyhow, at least 8 states have adopted such an act afer the US Supreme Court declared the federal act unconstitutional. The law was first passed as a result of outrage over the arrest of native Americans who was denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using a banned drug in his worship.

    A pertinent provision follows: (from Illinois) Sec. 15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government may not
    substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden
    results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates
    that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a
    compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means
    of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
    (Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

    Earlier this evening I read on an INA section Without Shame page a quote from a federal judge which seemed to say that if several people wanted to "express" themselves with nudity, that might be constitutionally protected -- whereas a single person would not. That makes little sense to be but be it as it may.

    What does make sense to me is a careful study of the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, consultation with attorneys, and invoking ones religious freedoms (taking into account the concerns of others with differing views -- in other words move slowly at first). I believe that this could force localities to provide CO areas -- as the laws read it might permit nudity anywhere. The RFRA require laws to fall in order to protect religious liberty unless an insurmontable harm would be done to the community and there is no other solution (special areas is a solution).But if there is going to have to be a court case and the Florida law grants you reimbursement of all your legal fees if you prevail, it should be one step at a time in my opinion.

    I will be in California for 10 days so I won't be able to respond. But just go the Google and put in Religious Freedom Restoration Act and read the various acts.

    Christians who accept early Christian practice can surely make a good case. Public baths nude and mixed; nude and mixed baptisms, Jesus was crucified nude (sorry later painters covered him up), Isiah being directed by God to go nude for 3 years. And if you want more read Paul Bowman's book entitled Nakedness and the Bible.

    But the US Supreme Court has held in the case of Daniel (Pete) Seeger and Cassius Clay (conscientious objector cases in the 70's) that any strongly held belief system constitutes a religion -- sorry I don't have the cases before me.

    Give it thought, serious thought -- and your opinion please. I will try to read any responses tomorrow (Thursday) but will be 10 days before I get back to a computer.

    By the way the other states are Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and of course Florida. Florida, with its diverse population, very liberal Supreme Court which has ruled atleast twice that mere nudity is not a crime but counties keep trying new methods, is an ideal State to test the law and FS 761.04 statesThe prevailing plaintiff in any case (anticipates that plaintiffs will sue to enjoin counties and cities from preventing their actions);in an action or roceeding to enfordce a provision of this act is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be paid by the government.

    Our act applies to "all state law,and the implementation of that law ... stattory or otherwise. Government or state includes any branch, department, agen;cy, instrumentality, or official or othr erson acting under color of lawof the stte, a conty, special district, municipality, or any othe subdivision of the state. Pretty inclusive!

    These laws turn the burden of proof on the government, rather than on the individual once the RFRA is invoked. And the government must find the least restrictive means of fulfilling that compelling government interest.

    This law was supported by the far right and the far left and included the ACLU and the conservative Baptists.

    Comment

    Working...
    X