I agree there are strong grounds for Supreme Court review. There should be a uniform national standard. The Ninth Circuit is an outlier on this issue. How can a person be expected to ignore scientific facts when claiming a religious exemption?
Because the reason for my religious exemption is not based on scientific facts. It is based on a higher order Spiritual reality not understood by a secular state, that also whines and cries about being "separate" from the "church".
Your religious exemption need not be based on any scientific facts.
Yet God gave us each a brain and intelligence, and my spiritual belief includes the assumption that He expects me to use mine, I hope always to His glory.
Science was originally the study of creation, in the attempt to better understand and appreciate the Creator.
The secular/religious reason for exemption from experimentation on my body by the state is not whether the state determines if my body is actually a temple or not.
The sincerely held belief ( by the holder and measured by the object of belief - God ), is that my body is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus owned by God, not the state, and that God has made me the sole accountable steward of that body, not the state.
A secular state is not qualified to evaluate my religious belief, by definition and by the secular approved principle of separation of church and state.
Remember, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the founding documents of these United States. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not in the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution. Not in the Constitution for the United States of America - our current constitution.
The Founders clearly did not intend a Godless society, nor a Godless government. They did, however, intend for government to stay out of the church.
So what! A lot of things that are now law were not in the founding documents. The SCOTUS has in most cases properly broadened the scope of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. As an example, the First Amendment has been expanded to not simply apply to speech directed at the government, but also makes free speech available everywhere because it is "inalienable" (can't be taken or withheld from us, legally anyway).
All "laws" that the "PsT(Shouldn't)Be" pass which say otherwise, are automatically void.
Maybe it would be better if the SCOTUS did NOT address these cases. Recall that we now have a SCOTUS that is majority-controlled by corporatists, statists, "conservatives" (aka, neoliberals), totalitarian socialists, collectivists, Zionists, Satanists, and "'Christian'-Zionists", etc., all of same rolled into all of that majority. They're likely not to be in favor of religious liberty, or True Liberty as a whole, as they have increasingly shown. I don't trust the "liberal" Justices either; but, what of it; or, so what?
I agree there are strong grounds for Supreme Court review. There should be a uniform national standard. The Ninth Circuit is an outlier on this issue. How can a person be expected to ignore scientific facts when claiming a religious exemption?
Because the reason for my religious exemption is not based on scientific facts. It is based on a higher order Spiritual reality not understood by a secular state, that also whines and cries about being "separate" from the "church".
Your religious exemption need not be based on any scientific facts.
Yet God gave us each a brain and intelligence, and my spiritual belief includes the assumption that He expects me to use mine, I hope always to His glory.
Science was originally the study of creation, in the attempt to better understand and appreciate the Creator.
FABULOUS!
(I always say to my wife, "why does mainstream christianity [sic] require you to be stupid?")
The secular/religious reason for exemption from experimentation on my body by the state is not whether the state determines if my body is actually a temple or not.
The sincerely held belief ( by the holder and measured by the object of belief - God ), is that my body is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus owned by God, not the state, and that God has made me the sole accountable steward of that body, not the state.
A secular state is not qualified to evaluate my religious belief, by definition and by the secular approved principle of separation of church and state.
Remember, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the founding documents of these United States. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not in the Articles of Confederation, our first constitution. Not in the Constitution for the United States of America - our current constitution.
The Founders clearly did not intend a Godless society, nor a Godless government. They did, however, intend for government to stay out of the church.
So what! A lot of things that are now law were not in the founding documents. The SCOTUS has in most cases properly broadened the scope of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. As an example, the First Amendment has been expanded to not simply apply to speech directed at the government, but also makes free speech available everywhere because it is "inalienable" (can't be taken or withheld from us, legally anyway).
All "laws" that the "PsT(Shouldn't)Be" pass which say otherwise, are automatically void.
Absolutely!
Maybe it would be better if the SCOTUS did NOT address these cases. Recall that we now have a SCOTUS that is majority-controlled by corporatists, statists, "conservatives" (aka, neoliberals), totalitarian socialists, collectivists, Zionists, Satanists, and "'Christian'-Zionists", etc., all of same rolled into all of that majority. They're likely not to be in favor of religious liberty, or True Liberty as a whole, as they have increasingly shown. I don't trust the "liberal" Justices either; but, what of it; or, so what?