Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[Cratylus]

So, yet again, people praise the government for infringing on individual rights so long as the government can couch it in terms of "the will of the people" or some other nebulous or indefinable concept.

Appeals to the Constitution in the name of such government encroachment don't help matters when one considers that the entire existence of our country was predicated on the principle that human rights are inalienable. Read the Declaration of Independence if you doubt me here. It is important to note that Jefferson takes care to mention that the reason for declaring independence from Britain was that the government had a history of "a long train of abuses and usurpations" of those rights (he actually lists 28 examples of such).

People don't automatically give up their human rights just because they happen to live under the protection of the government. If human rights are inalienable from the human condition, they cannot be rightfully usurped by government under the guise of "doing the public good" or "upholding the will of the majority".

The claim that "businesses must be regulated, schools, markets, housing, etc.; that is a function of government" misses the point entirely. If government is to regulate them, it must do so in a way that does not infringe on the inalienable rights of individuals. And when the government compels a business owner to provide services against his will, it is doing just that: violating the basic human right of self-determination. Jefferson himself spoke clearly about this inseparable right when he wrote the following:

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376​

Personal liberty is what allows an individual to pursue happiness so long as that pursuit doesn't infringe on the inalienable rights of others.

But think for a minute about what that means in light of our scenario. If our business owner refuses to service a gay couple's wedding,

• The gay couple still has their life
• The gay couple still has their liberty
• The gay couple still has the ability to pursue happiness (it'll just be with another vendor)

But what happens if the government compels the business owner to violate his own conscience and to supply services against his will?

• The business owner still has his life
• The business owner still has the ability to pursue happiness, but
• The government has taken away the business person's liberty (namely, he is no longer in control of his own person and the use of it at his own will)

In other words, it's not the business owner doing the rights-violating here. It's the government doing it in the name of the gay couple under the guise of "protecting their rights". And what exactly are those "rights" that they are protecting? The right to another person's property and/or body for their own purposes? Because no matter how one wishes to rationalize it, that is exactly what they are doing. And that is precisely how we can know with certainty that "freedom from discrimination" is not an inalienable human right - because its inclusion as one would automatically mean, by definition, that the right to personal liberty (which we know is an inalienable human right) would be violated all the time.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Okay Optimus, I'll play along...

Why do you have a right to life, liberty, and property and only those rights?

According to who?

Furthermore, even if all other rights are descendant/derivatives of those more fundamental or base rights does not logically preclude an individual from exercising that right.

To say, you have these three rights, no more, no less; makes no sense, logically, to me.

I'm sure there is a lot of stuff from Locke or founders of this country I could brush up on, but I don't have time to do all of that at work right now, so I will just try to pull something out my ass.

Think about what it means to have rights. They are actions, for lack of a better word, that you no one can legitimately stop you from doing. If a law, or the repeal of a law, can legitimately stop you, then it isn't a right.

Property ownership is the only way to really establish rights for this reason. If the source of our right to life and liberty was a government law, well, if they change the law, does that mean we don't have that right? Did blacks not have these rights until the government recognized them? Or did they have them and were being oppressed? This is why I always call the term "civil rights" oxymoronic, because they are simply privileges granted by the government that can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. The government didn't grant blacks rights. They just stopped oppressing their rights.

If you have no rights you are a slave to the king. And if we are not slaves, and the government can not be the source of rights, the natural rights of life, liberty, and property naturally follow.

 

[gourimoko]

Why is he so willing to associate some offensive speech/actions with Christianity, but will not do the same with Islam?

Maybe because he's a Christian and understands Christianity; but unlike some, he's not willing to pretend to understand Islam?

Where 's the questioning statement about hearing hate come from self-professed adherents of Islam?

Where is this a problem in America? How is this remotely related to what he's talking about.

When discussing Christianity, our own religion, why on Earth would we reference another faith other than Judaism (for the purposes of tradition and the Old Testament)? It makes absolutely no sense.

Should ministers in Church reference Islam during service too?

He did this previously when he linked Christianity with the Crusades, but refuses to link Islamic terrorism with Islam.

But he did address the issue. He stated that Islam and terrorism are not intertwined as many would claim.

Rather than stating that Islam leads to terrorism here as if it's a fact, it's probably best to put his (and the Administration's) message in context.

Why doesn't the "that's not really Islam, so I'm not calling it Islamic terrorism" argument apply equally whenever someone Christian says or does something wrong?

You really should actually listen to the man, or at least read what he said, rather than focusing on Fox News soundbites:

President Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast: (a Christian oriented event btw)

"But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments. And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process. And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends."

I see nothing wrong with anything he said here.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm sure there is a lot of stuff from Locke or founders of this country I could brush up on, but I don't have time to do all of that at work right now, so I will just try to pull something out my ass.

Think about what it means to have rights. They are actions, for lack of a better word, that you no one can legitimately stop you from doing. If a law, or the repeal of a law, can legitimately stop you, then it isn't a right.

Property ownership is the only way to really establish rights for this reason. If the source of our right to life and liberty was a government law, well, if they change the law, does that mean we don't have that right? Did blacks not have these rights until the government recognized them? Or did they have them and were being oppressed? This is why I always call the term "civil rights" oxymoronic, because they are simply privileges granted by the government that can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.

If you have no rights you are a slave to the king. And if we are not slaves, and the government can not be the source of rights, the natural rights of life, liberty, and property naturally follow.

Optimus, I get everything you are saying here. But in that, you didn't really answer my question.

My question to you is this:

Why do we assume we have the rights to life, liberty, and property?

Who says that is true, and by what authority?

Why is it that we have those three and no more and no less?

And why is it that if we have those three rights that I cannot logically ascertain derivative rights emergent from those fundamental rights?

 

[RonG]

nevm

 

[OptimusPrime]

Why do we assume we have the rights to life, liberty, and property?

Who says that is true, and by what authority?

I, among others, say it is true because I am not a slave. That is all of the authority I need.

And why is it that if we have those three rights that I cannot logically ascertain derivative rights emergent from those fundamental rights?

You can logically ascertain other rights from those. The Bill of Rights has some of them. You have the right to speak freely because no one has the authority to tell you not to. You have the right to arm and defend yourself and your property.

But I can't possibly see how you can derive the right to purchase property from someone that doesn't want to sell it. Rights are limited by the equal rights of others.

 

[Otsego Mar]

• The gay couple still has their life
• The gay couple still has their liberty
• The gay couple still has the ability to pursue happiness (it'll just be with another vendor)

Well yea....until every vendor (or a majority) decides to descriminate against them for the simple fact that "they can" or "it goes against their religion", etc.

You know....kinda like slavery? It's interesting that the government at one point supported slavery (and the majority sat by and saw no wrong in it?) and then at another point they had to put it into law to abolish it (and now everyone realizes how crazy the idea of owning another person is).

Free men do not need any written word to be free. There is a catch 22 it appears.

However, I do believe truly free men should be living by a general moral code that no one should generate for them but themselves (govern-ment control-mind does not apply).

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Really you don't think he has a responsibility to police his own religion? I call other Christians out all the time for the hate they are spewing. I am a Christian, I believe that we have a responsibility to accurately portrait the love God has for us. This is not always happening in our current society.

People should be called out for spewing hate regardless of their religious beliefs.

 

[Cratylus]

Optimus, I get everything you are saying here. But in that, you didn't really answer my question.

My question to you is this:

Why do we assume we have the rights to life, liberty, and property?

Who says that is true, and by what authority?

Why is it that we have those three and no more and no less?

And why is it that if we have those three rights that I cannot logically ascertain derivative rights emergent from those fundamental rights?

I'm not Optimus, but I'll answer.

Why do we assume we have the rights to life, liberty, and property? Who says that is true, and by what authority? - As Jefferson puts it, because they are "self-evident truths". As Locke puts it, because it is reasonable: "Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” If we don't innately possess those things, then all people are born slaves, as Locke puts it, subject to the "inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man".

 

[Otsego Mar]

Unfortunately, government has a good long track record of using their reasoning to step all over the arbitrary will of the people.

Of course, I completely agree with and understand Locke.

 

[Cratylus]

Well yea....until every vendor (or a majority) decides to descriminate against them for the simple fact that "they can" or "it goes against their religion", etc.

Please notice that happiness is not an inalienable right, only the pursuit of it is. Along that path of pursuit, you are sure to meet obstacles, challenges, naysayers, hindrances, people who will try to unravel your plans, meanies, etc. There is no right "not to be offended or inconvenienced". See my post #331 in this thread for why that's the case.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Please notice that happiness is not an inalienable right, only the pursuit of it is. Along that path of pursuit, you are sure to meet obstacles, challenges, naysayers, hindrances, people who will try to unravel your plans, meanies, etc. There is no right "not to be offended or inconvenienced". See my post #331 in this thread for why that's the case.

I understand and agree with this and the Locke post.

However, with regards to descrimination, I just view it a little different.

 

[gourimoko]

So, yet again, people praise the government for infringing on individual rights so long as the government can couch it in terms of "the will of the people" or some other nebulous or indefinable concept.

But I think that concept is the foundation of the social contract, and the entire reason governments exist and exercise authority over individuals.

If "the will of the people" is nebulous and indefinable, then government should not logically exist.

Appeals to the Constitution in the name of such government encroachment don't help matters when one considers that the entire existence of our country was predicated on the principle that human rights are inalienable.

Cratylus, I know you already know this so I won't waste my time saying too much on the subject but Kant, Hobbes and Locke, who all had different views on the nature of the State, all still agreed that there were natural rights based on natural laws and civil rights based on the social contract of society - ours being the Constitution of the United States.

Since we're talking about the natural right of property then I think it's also important to point out that this right, according to Locke, is dependent upon the right to liberty - not the reverse. This is in accordance with Immanuel Kant's view that the only natural right was freedom itself; and that all other rights were derived from that.

The right to property has never been considered to be equal to the right to equality, a right that Kant states is one of only three rights any state must protect.

Furthermore, Kant, Hobbes, and Locke would agree that the social contract allows for the derivation of civil rights - many of which are naturally emergent from the basic natural rights. We consider many of these negative rights, such as the right to property (in the United States), the right to privacy, etc. These rights "impose duties on individuals within society" to not act against others to restrict their freedom. The right against discrimination is emergent from the first and secondary premise of the State according to Immanuel Kant.

In fact, in Kantian Ethics, discrimination of any sort is a crime against society as it denies individuals their natural rights of equality.

So again, I ask, from where is it that we are claiming these rights and by what philosophy are we presupposing that the right to property overrides and outweighs the right to be free against discrimination?

Read the Declaration of Independence if you doubt me here.

But the Declaration of Independence does not posit any right to property, but instead to the "Pursuit of Happiness," again from Locke's Concerning Human Understanding , but more to the point, from the Greek Epicurean fundamental belief that happiness was the entire point to life. Jefferson goes on at length in letters in this regard, and is moral and philosophical beliefs regarding Epicurean moral theory.

It is important to note that Jefferson takes care to mention that the reason for declaring independence from Britain was that the government had a history of "a long train of abuses and usurpations" of those rights (he actually lists 28 examples of such).

Okay.

People don't automatically give up their human rights just because they happen to live under the protection of the government.

According to who?

Kant and Hobbes are quite clear on the subject of surrendering rights to the State, as is Locke who agreed that giving up portions of your natural rights was fundamental to establishing a social contract to create a sovereign state.

The laws of that state would be binding in so long as the state protected the fundamental rights of the people.

Locke's reasoning differed from Kant and Hobbes in that he felt man was naturally good, and that in "The State of Nature" he lived in an ideal utopian reality; however the existence of property and the necessity to secure it leads us to the need for a sovereign state which can impose laws to protect individuals and their property.

If human rights are inalienable from the human condition, they cannot be rightfully usurped by government under the guise of "doing the public good" or "upholding the will of the majority".

Again, according to who? Or at least, by what logic have you come to this conclusion?

Again Locke supposed that the state is a necessity so long as property exists and that people surrender their rights to punish and execute the laws to the state as part of the social contract.

Locke speaks about punishment, including imprisonment and execution in his Second Treatise where he makes his position explicitly clear: that the State holds a "political power" including "the right of making laws with the penalties of death."

If these rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are inalienable, then this would be a logical contradiction.

Instead, it holds that when understanding Locke and Jefferson's philosophical views, one understands that yes there is a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as well as property); but that "social order," "punishment," and the execution of the laws laid out by society can trump those individual rights.

Thus society has the power to imprison, if just, and to kill, if just. Inalienable rights do not mean, and have never meant, an absolute restriction on the actions of the state; but instead a means of justification on the use of power.

The claim that "businesses must be regulated, schools, markets, housing, etc.; that is a function of government" misses the point entirely.

How?

If government is to regulate them, it must do so in a way that does not infringe on the inalienable rights of individuals.

Sure.

And when the government compels a business owner to provide services against his will, it is doing just that: violating the basic human right of self-determination.

I think you could make this exact same claim regarding the right of the sovereign state to levy taxes.

What if I do not want to pay taxes? To tax me, forcibly, violates my self-determination and my inalienable right to property.

Cratylus, your right to self-determination is not absolute according to any of the political philosophers I've mentioned. You surrender much of your natural rights in the establishment of the social contract so that the state can protect your rights; at least, according to Locke.

Jefferson himself spoke clearly about this inseparable right when he wrote the following:

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376​

Personal liberty is what allows an individual to pursue happiness so long as that pursuit doesn't infringe on the inalienable rights of others.

Again, by this logic, there is no right to taxation and the state cannot exist. By this logic the state, under no circumstances, could imprison or execute criminals.

Under this logic, no court could remove a person from his land or his property from him making civil courts functionally useless.

Again, the phrase inalienable has limitations. Obviously when a person is incarcerated, his endowed inalienable right to liberty has not been removed? So how do we resolve this logical conflict?

But think for a minute about what that means in light of our scenario. If our business owner refuses to service a gay couple's wedding,

• The gay couple still has their life
• The gay couple still has their liberty
• The gay couple still has the ability to pursue happiness (it'll just be with another vendor)

But they've lost their right to equality, to be treated as any other person in society. Again, here you set the stage and then expect everyone to wholly agree, but on what basis?

Why is it that we can define other negative rights such as the right to self-defense, or the right to privacy, and not the right to be equal or the right to be free from discrimination - even when those rights were declared by numerous philosophers going back to the Ancient Greeks?

But what happens if the government compels the business owner to violate his own conscience and to supply services against his will?

• The business owner still has his life
• The business owner still has the ability to pursue happiness, but
• The government has taken away the business person's liberty (namely, he is no longer in control of his own person and the use of it at his own will)

But the government has taken away the business person's right to property when they explicitly taxed him for conducting business to begin with. Or when they taxed the sale of goods, or when they taxed the land that he owns; or when they taxed the mortgage between the owner and the bank....

In other words, it's not the business owner doing the rights-violating here. It's the government doing it in the name of the gay couple under the guise of "protecting their rights".

Again, according to you, and again I ask on what basis?

Logic:

I assert that the business owner unlawfully discriminating against the gay couple has violated a binding statute and should be liable for it.

I further assert that in the State of Nature, the business owner might lose his property by force due to his discrimination.

Therefore, from a Lockean moral perspective the role of the state in this instance is to protect the business owner's property while simultaneously maintaining and satisfying the social order; and thus, if society grants us a civil right to be free from discrimination, on whatever moral basis whether it be a derivative of a natural right or otherwise, then the business owner must respect that right.

And what exactly are those "rights" that they are protecting? The right to another person's property and/or body for their own purposes? Because no matter how one wishes to rationalize it, that is exactly what they are doing. And that is precisely how we can know with certainty that "freedom from discrimination" is not an inalienable human right - because its inclusion as one would automatically mean, by definition, that the right to personal liberty (which we know is an inalienable human right) would be violated all the time.

Again, according to who?

Kantian morality not only establishes the freedom from discrimination as a fundamental right, but one of only several basis for the establishment of any state.

Locke would surely disagree, and thus, different strokes for different folks. Where we all should agree is that we have a social contract that does indeed restrict the natural exercise of those inalienable rights, according to any philosopher you wish to cite, and for obvious reasons.

The civil right to be free from discrimination is the binding law of the United States, and yes, the business owner, as a member of that society, must abide by it.

If you disagree, then again, I ask, on what logical / ethical basis?

 

[gourimoko]

I, among others, say it is true because I am not a slave. That is all of the authority I need.



You can logically ascertain other rights from those. The Bill of Rights has some of them. You have the right to speak freely because no one has the authority to tell you not to. You have the right to arm and defend yourself and your property.

But I can't possibly see how you can derive the right to purchase property from someone that doesn't want to sell it. Rights are limited by the equal rights of others.

Optimus you have the right to freely sell goods so long as all equally have the right to purchase. This is perfectly in line with your last logic assertion.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Optimus you have the right to freely sell goods so long as all equally have the right to purchase. This is perfectly in line with your last logic assertion.

I have the right to freely sell goods. I have the right not to sell my goods. There is no such thing as "you have the right to ____, as long as ____", unless the second blank says, "you don't infringe on the equal rights of others."