8 Comments

Ray Ingles
February 17th, 2012 | 9:48 am

Soloveichik writes,


In refusing to extend religious liberty beyond the parameters of what the administration chooses to deem religious conduct, the administration denies people of faith the ability to define their religious activity.

But there must be some ‘administrative’ limits on what counts as ‘religious conduct’. Otherwise, someone could found a religion based on robbing banks and plead First Amendment protection.

In general, I favor very broad interpretations of First Amendment protections. For example, I think the administration is wrong about the contraceptive mandate, and I think Employment Division v. Smith was wrongly decided.

But while there’s room for disagreement (plenty!) about where the lines should be drawn, the basic principle that some legal limits on religious practice are necessary seems beyond question to me.

Crowhill
February 17th, 2012 | 10:27 am

Recently I’ve been impressed with some David Brooks columns. Not that one.

Blake
February 17th, 2012 | 1:09 pm

But there must be some ‘administrative’ limits on what counts as ‘religious conduct’. Otherwise, someone could found a religion based on robbing banks and plead First Amendment protection.

I disagree that it’s President Obama’s personal prerogative to determine which churches are real and which are not.

Especially when he is clearly willing to misuse and abuse his power in this regard.

TimC
February 17th, 2012 | 2:11 pm

I have to agree with Crowhill.

From Brooks’s article:
“That’s why shepherds are perpetually becoming kings in the Bible.”
Really? Oh, he must mean like David and… who else, exactly?

Ray Ingles
February 17th, 2012 | 3:47 pm

Blake –


I disagree that it’s President Obama’s personal prerogative to determine which churches are real and which are not.

Thankfully, that’s not what I said, so we’re in agreement.

andrew
February 17th, 2012 | 4:59 pm

david brooks seems to forget both lin and tebow would consider jesus the ultimate stud, the epitome of manliness, and the paragon of courage….

besides, we all know that the true glory of sport is not self-assertion, but self-sacrifice. i’ll take the local diminutive high school point guard who plays his heart out every game for a winless team over lebron james anyday….

Blake
February 18th, 2012 | 9:22 am

Blake –

I disagree that it’s President Obama’s personal prerogative to determine which churches are real and which are not.

Thankfully, that’s not what I said, so we’re in agreement.


Obama does not have the right to define what is religious in such narrow terms.

I like this from the article:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves,” wrote Washington, “for giving to Mankind . . . a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”

You people would strip America of something that is dear to it, and for what? For no better reason than to punish Catholics for not affirming your views on sex.

Shameful.

Ray Ingles
February 18th, 2012 | 3:31 pm

Obama does not have the right to define what is religious in such narrow terms…. You people would strip America of something that is dear to it,

I’ve already disagreed with the administration’s position, even in direct replies to you that you’ve replied to, even in the very first comment in this thread.

I don’t expect you to acknowledge that. At this point, I’m not even sure you’re able to comprehend that I might not hold every position you seem to want me to. I just wanted to point out your error, for the record.