Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

The Romeikes are a German family who fled to the U.S. in order to home school without persecution. Homeschooling has been illegal in Germany since the days of Adolph Hitler.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0137p-06.pdf is the 6th Circuit decision on the case upholding the denial of the Romeike's asylum petition, and http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/04/why-hslda-is-wrong-about-romeike-v-holder.html explains why, in the opinion of that author, the decision was right. The Obama administration had appealed the initial decision to grant asylum.

Here's the point: Years ago Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith threw out the Lemon test and instituted a new test to use when determining whether someone's religion was being infringed upon. The Lemon test required the government to show a compelling interest before religion could be infringed. Scalia's new rule asked whether or not the law was overtly against religion, and whether or not it applied to everyone just the same.

It seems to me that the court in the Romeike case used the same sort of reasoning, and that this reasoning is found in other cases too.

So what if we had a Sunday law, and what if it was written in such a way that it applied to everyone, and what if it was enforced against atheists and Baptists as much as Seventh-day Adventists? It seems to sound as if the courts would deny that there was any religious persecution going on, and would deny asylum on that basis.

Does this bother you?

[Dedication]

We only have to read the comments from people pushing Sunday laws to realize they are building on that very rationale. 
We read:
"The North Dakota Catholic Conference has responded to criticism of a law restricting Sunday hours for businesses, saying the regulation benefits the whole of society. 'The purpose of North Dakota’s Sunday closing law is not to impose times of worship. Nor is it to demand adherence to religious doctrine. The purpose of the law is to preserve the common good by ensuring that society is not overtaken by work and profit,” wrote Christopher Dodson, executive director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, in a July 12 article."

Read more: --http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=3598#ixzz2d8fwURzO

Now consider the case against the Romeikes:

It is claimed that
"First, it wasn’t persecution because the anti-homeschooling law was one of general application (not meant to target a specific group, but rather something that applied evenly across the board)."

In other words the claim is,
a law restricting homeschooling, saying the regulation benefits the whole of society, does not constitute persecution.
And--
A law restricting secular activity on Sunday benefits the whole of society, thus it does not constitute persecution.

However -- it restricts freedom of choice and is all about government control over personal issues.
And if you happen to feel strongly about some aspect within those issues, you will suffer persecution.

If the Romeikes return to Germany and continue to homeschool their children the government will remove the children from their parents.  That constitutes a very disturbing form of persecution!

 


 

[Bob Pickle]

I think we should be watching the U.S. Supreme Court case Greece v. Galloway. It's about prayer at city council meetings in Greece, NY. The Obama administration has come out in favor of Greece, calling the prayers constitutional. The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to revise the way we view the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The original article I saw on this was at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/the_supreme_court_will_have_another_chance_to_decide_when_government_can.html.

[Dedication]

Being Canadian, I've been somewhat disturbed by some legislature being pushed in Quebec.  (and in France)
Basically this new legislature, if passed, would ban the wearing of any noticeable religious symbol in public workplaces.
The obvious target are the distinctive clothing of Muslims and sheiks, but would also include such things as crucifixes -- and who knows what else?

--http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/26/proposed_quebec_ban_on_religious_symbols_takes_step_forward.html