https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/01/18/hhs-ocr-announces-new-conscience-and-religious-freedom-division.html


Fair use excerpt:

"The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division has been established to restore federal enforcement of our nation’s laws that protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious freedom. OCR is the law enforcement agency within HHS that enforces federal laws protecting civil rights and conscience in health and human services, and the security and privacy of people’s health information. The creation of the new division will provide HHS with the focus it needs to more vigorously and effectively enforce existing laws protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights."



COMMENT:

So, every POTUS should have a religious council, too, right?

Why is this thread entitled "Theocracy?" I don't get it.

My guess is that taken to an extreme, religious people would be governed by their individual or cult definitions of what is right and proper.

Government would have people treat each other as equals.

Some religious beliefs allow for discrimination against certain defined groups. Civil laws would be expected to yield to religious laws, as in "I serve a higher master!"

For awhile the chaos might be orderly...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)

This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants' and employees' sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/

denying service on the basis of religion is against the law. It doesn't read:

"...on the basis of religious freedom,..."


Discriminating against someone because they do NOT hold your religious beliefs is against the law. Workers of HHS are to serve the ENTIRE tax-paying population, not just those whom share their religious tenets. They knew this whey they applied for a job in the public sector. Available services are available services, and they may not discriminate based on their personally applicable (not publicly applicable) beliefs.

If anyone thinks that the cake lawsuits are a trifle,... just wait.

This kind of pushback isn't necessarily a bad thing. Separation of church and state means that one doesn't infringe on the other. People can think whatever they want. They just can't do whatever they want.

But...letting people "do whatever they want" is the whole point of this "new division" (and, hey, whatever happened to this group wanting smaller government and less regulation? I guess that's only for the environment and business, not religious people!).

So doctors and nurses will be officially allowed to refuse to treat people they have a "religious objection" to?
Like "people of color" (the mormons, Southern Baptists, and many others had "religious objections" to them for a very long time)?

This is a step on a very dark and nasty road...

S/N micah voiced opposition to Hie's opinion, stating that he was an idiot (okay, so maybe I took a small liberty...) for denying the "right of conscience" as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

I got the impression that he, micah, thought very highly of this "right of conscience" and that suppressing it was a bad thing. Perhaps micah's language wasn't the best, but I think the matter is worth discussing.

Obviously I have the right to disagree with an action (or inaction) taken by government, but do I have the right to decide that in violating the government's 'opinion' I am shielded from a comeuppance by my "right of conscience"?

Can I refuse to serve people who wear mixed clothing fabrics, based on my adherence to the old testament, without consequence?

the entire notion of "Separation of Church and State?"

It is making me seriously uncomfortable.

On the upcoming census of 2020 - will there be questions about your religion? (I don't remember from previous ones.) If you write "None," or "atheist," could that come back in the future when the Religious Right gains the power to deny you employment, healthcare, housing, or whatever?

Can we really count on being "Free From Religion," as we have been in the past?

Try to imagine, when you have been happily free of religion for years, suddenly having to trot off to some kind of worship service, at least often enough to count, just to retain vitally important services that cannot presently be denied?

I think it blatantly violates. "Make no law...but allow denial of sevice based on personal religious tenets.."

No. "Make no law" would include policies (governance) of tax-payer funded employees working for that government. I don't expect it to take long to find its way into court.


https://www.hhs.gov/programs/index.html

So, the neediest among us would not *have* to be advised of free birth control programs, if it violates that worker's beliefs?

Or, if a druggie needs help getting clean, the only thing offered is prayer.

Or, if a LGBQ+ person needs assistance, the worker barely knows how to converse intelligently, completely unaware of required needs.

It's horrific thinking of the harm that religion is going to do in government, and how hated a thing it will become. Exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. It's supposed to be a secular goverment with equal respect for all, regardless of faith.

The intent is pretty clear here:

https://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Jefferson wrote of ideal walls. Abstract thought is not a strong suit for religious extremism. It's extreme to believe that everyone else must provide religionists complete freedom of worship, while being paid for their services to serve all, equally. If their job description requires them to know about and relate information about birth control, but they don't want to do that, let them go work for a religious organization, not our secular government.

not tolerated, back in the day.

I remember back when HIV/AIDS was a relatively new thing. Not much was known about it, and there was a lot of uncertainty about how it was transmitted.

I worked for Social Security. A guy with AIDS came in to file for disability. The rep he was assigned to refused to take the claim. When the supervisor told him to do his job, the rep said "You can't make me talk to this effin' f@ggot. He might breathe on me."

Management decided that the man with AIDS deserved to be treated with dignity and respect, which was not likely with that particular rep, so he was assigned to someone else, who took his claim without incident. Management also decided that the rep probably needed to seek employment elsewhere. I don't think it was a religious issue for that guy, it was homophobia.

But the point I'm trying to make it that he COULD have cited religious reasons as an excuse not to deal with the ailing man. The Federal Government is there to serve. It does not have the right to pick and choose. I have personally dealt with people who were sick, crazy, smelly, abusive - you name it, and I have probably dealt with it. That was my job, and I did it to the best of my ability.

I hope that this aspect of Federal Civil Service will NEVER change. Religion is not, and should not be, a part of the equation.

I think that most doctors and nurses would tread very carefully in this area, particularly in an emergency setting.

I think that anyone not wanting to participate in performing an abortion would be on very solid ground long before this pronouncement. However, denying services (particularly emergent services) to someone because they were gay, trans, divorced, "living in sin", had an abortion, or some other "moral” reason would be a very risky thing legally, professionally, and economically, regardless of some vague pronouncement from HHS.

The first person who does something outrageous medically based on
"Religious Freedom” is likely to have their life, career and privacy completely destroyed. They will have the rest of the life to consider whether it was worth it or not.

I wonder if "conscience and religious freedom" extends to atheists. When can we be expecting the stupid oaths on the Bible for public office to be changing?

...after the Second Coming.

Um, that one was written directly into the Constitution. You have the option to affirm rather than swear an oath.