So I was just reading that this guy who is accused of shooting at the white house recently believed he was "the modern day Jesus you've all be waiting for" and that Obama was the anti-christ and he [ortega-hernandez] believed God wanted him to kill him [Obama].  I think some of the religious claims may have been taken slightly out of context (ie, I'm not sure if he literally thought he was Jesus, or more metaphorically thought so, like one would say "I'm the modern day fred astair!" or something), but it got me thinking a few things that I thought I'd bounce off you guys.

First, if he really did believe he was on some mission from God, it sort of drives home the point I was making in my discussion with Heath recently in the prayer thread.  I think I may have made my last post in that discussion overly personal, by asking Heath to consider what he, personally, would do if his Prophet told him to kill someone, and probably caused the discussion to end by doing so, so I apologize for that.  But, I think this case of Ortega-Hernandez illustrates that it's not just paranoia on my part to bring that kind of question up.

Second, if he really did believe these religious ideas, someone taking a very simple interpretation of the constitution might say his attempt at assassination was a protected action, since congress could make no laws restricting his practice of his religion.  Now, I don't think any reasonable person would hold such a view.  We all accept, probably without even thinking about it, that there are practical limits on religious freedom in the US.  You can't kill anyone just because it's part of your religion.  Their right to not be killed trumps your right to practice that aspect of your religion.

My question, though, is where does, and where should that line be drawn?  How do/should we decide when religious rights trump, and when they don't?  Thorny cases on this topic are fairly numerous.  There's the issue of whether or not a parent who's religion rejects modern medicine should be allowed to let their child die of a curable illness.  Whether religious practices that involve drug use (native american religious ceremonies involving peyote, for example) should be legal exceptions to the drug laws.  Should religious organizations be able to violate the american with disabilities act and fire people because they're in a wheel chair, and simply not be subject to legal action because the government cannot get involved in how a religious organization does its business?  I'm sure you guys can come up with others.

So, what's the right line to draw?  Is there a good guideline we can use to determine where religious freedom ends?

The medical care issue I see more of a parent/child thing than a religious thing. A parent (almost) always has a right to refuse care for a child as he would for himself. And indeed, they test that to the limit. I don't think though that a priest should be able to make medical decisions for his parishioners.

I'm not sure about the disabilities question (or more poignantly, race). I'd be inclined to say yes, though, they can violate it. If you believe that this particular line of people will rise to become gods, for instance, it would be ridiculous if you were held to employ people of other races. Those other people simply don't meet the requirements (of being a soon-to-transcend-uber-god).

It's interesting that when you talk about assassinating someone on the basis of religious fanaticism, you can be sure most people will rule in favor of the victim. But if you have to deal with a parent endangering the life of their child for the sake of religious conviction, it immediately becomes complicated. I realize they are not the same issue, but the similarity between them is striking, at least for myself.

I read about a case in Canada along this vein where a judge ruled that a child's levels of maturity and competence should be considered before any decisions made. I like the idea, but it seems very unlikely, due to indoctrination, that a child's decision would differ from that of parents. I have no problem with parents teaching their children the things they hold sacred, but this situation seems to make the issue much more complicated. One could make a strong case for chalking it up 'meaningless loss of life in the name of God'.

In the end I'm not really sure where I stand. I suppose I feel  to say, "It should be the family's (which pretty much means the parent's) choice," but that doesn't quite satisfy me. I still see a child as a victim of indoctrination, but I guess that's another subject entirely.

Kinda gives me a weird Abraham and Isaac vibe, only there's no angel to show up and put a stop to it.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:54, Sat 19 Nov 2011.

Yeah, with kids, I find the idea of letting parents make crazy decisions for them a bit odd.  We wouldn't allow the parents to make the choice to, say, amputate a child's arm purely for religious reasons (I hope not, at least), but we do allow the parent to reject a medical treatment that leads to the exact same result.  For adults, sure, let people make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own medical treatment.  But to me, it sort of seems like if you're at the point where you're putting your child's life in danger by preventing them from getting medical treatment, that's not all that different from refusing to give your child food or water or the like, and the state should probably step in and take over for someone who's clearly not doing the job of looking after their child.

I realize that we have a natural tendency to view the consequences of actions as different to the consequences of not taking an action, whether that's logical or not I'm not entirely sure but it's something we pretty much all do.  But in this one, I guess making a decision to refuse a type of medical treatment sort of seems like an action to me.

The other irony could come out of the fact that we allow mothers to abort their unborn children and lambast the religious groups that speak up on behalf of the child; then of course, there are the crazies who bomb abortion clinics and the like on religious grounds.  The constitution is always about striking certain balances and weighing one need against another.

I would definitely agree that a balance needs to be struck, and that was sort of the motivation for starting this thread.  But I'm not sure the constitution actually tells us where that balance is to be struck.  It tells us that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" but we all seem to be in agreement here that some religious acts should be (and are) illegal, so the free exercise of religion is prohibited in some cases.  The question is when do (and when should) we do so.  I think we'd all agree (though anyone should correct me if I'm wrong on that) that it has something to do with balancing one person's right to practice their religion with another person's right to avoid the unwanted effects of them doing so.  But beyond that somewhat vague principle, I can't claim to be able to clearly and succinctly express how we should decide whose rights trump whose in these cases.  I can look at individual cases and decide whose rights I think are more important, but I can't really come up with a good general rule.

But it is well developed in the law.

Ah, gotcha.  That might be juts what I'm looking for.  What is the guideline that judges have come up with?