North Dakota: Why?

[General Kong]

http://skepticalmonsters.wordpress.c...ld-be-friends/

A Proposed Initiative in North Dakota will give special Priviledges to anyone that breaks the law and says that "God told me to do it"
Now the wording of the Initiative is not worring in of itself (In that the Government will decide if god really told you to do it or not)

But the potential damage will be astronomical

Like for instance we will be seeing criminals all over the place using this excuse, and some of them will not be punished
Or Religious Extremists will use this law to attack other Religions

What are your opinions?

[Pocktio]

How dare you oppose the will of God? If he tells me I need a bigger television I'm damn well going to indulge him.

[Langy]

I fail to see anything wrong with the wording of that law - basically, it says the government needs some kind of compelling reason to outlaw things. The only thing I can think of that this might impact would be animal sacrifice for religious purposes, various rules of marriage (up to and including possibly making homosexual or polygamist marriages legal), or possibly the smoking of marijuana or use of other drugs (again, for religious purposes). The government would need to show that it has a compelling interest to outlaw these things when done for religious purposes. If I remember correctly, that's actually a relatively well-defined legal term in use in other laws and constitutions.

It would not, however, make it so someone could claim 'god told me to kill this man' and allow them to walk free. The government clearly has a compelling interest to outlaw murder, whether it's god-sanctioned or not.

[Paladin]

To be fair, the government shouldn't outlaw anything ever, without a compelling reason.

[Langy]

Agreed, Paladin; that's why I fail to see anything wrong with the law.

[Paladin]

On the one hand, I agree with you Langy... On the other hand I think it's a redundant law (Which is always bad), in that the First Amendment already covers this, and creating a specific statute to reinforce it smacks of giving special privileges to the religious, whereas the First Amendment fairly clearly encompasses non-religious philosophies.

There's also the fact that I figure this is a thinly veiled attempt to allow employers to refuse to abide by the birth control stipulation in the Obamacare package...

[roflmao]

Agreed about it being redundant. But the law is also (as a lot of laws are, sadly) extremely vague. How in the hell do you define what a "compelling reason" is in a society where pretty much everyone disagrees on what would classify as a "compelling reason"?

[Derivative]

The thread title is misleading. I thought this was a thread about why North Dakota exists at all.

[Starblade]

I thought this was a thread about why North Dakota exists at all.

North Dakota: "Why not?"

The only thing I can think of that this might impact would be animal sacrifice for religious purposes, various rules of marriage (up to and including possibly making homosexual or polygamist marriages legal), or possibly the smoking of marijuana or use of other drugs (again, for religious purposes).

Considering who's sponsoring it, I seriously doubt it's going to have any impact on any of that.

[Langy]

On the one hand, I agree with you Langy... On the other hand I think it's a redundant law (Which is always bad), in that the First Amendment already covers this, and creating a specific statute to reinforce it smacks of giving special privileges to the religious, whereas the First Amendment fairly clearly encompasses non-religious philosophies.

There's also the fact that I figure this is a thinly veiled attempt to allow employers to refuse to abide by the birth control stipulation in the Obamacare package...

The first amendment doesn't quite cover this; it lacks the 'compelling interest' bit in the text, so this law is almost, but not entirely, covered under it already.

As for it being an end-run around the birth control stipulation - it wouldn't work. Federal law trumps state law. North Dakota could even pass a law saying 'Obamacare is illegal in North Dakota!', but it wouldn't actually do anything because a state can't do jack about a federal law except attempt to change the federal law.

Considering who's sponsoring it, I seriously doubt it's going to have any impact on any of that.

Who's sponsoring it doesn't actually matter; the law is what the law is. If someone wants to make a law to force black kids to eat bees, but their law is worded 'all children must eat bees daily', then it impacts all children, not just those the sponsor intended.

[Paladin]

The first amendment doesn't quite cover this; it lacks the 'compelling interest' bit in the text, so this law is almost, but not entirely, covered under it already.

Except that as an Amendment to the Constitution, this is a hard limit on governmental authority. It automatically requires a compelling reason to deprive a person of the freedom to practice his religion.

[Nurizeko]

I thought 'god told me to do it' was basically known more commonly as 'schizophrenia'?

[Starblade]

Who's sponsoring it doesn't actually matter; the law is what the law is. If someone wants to make a law to force black kids to eat bees, but their law is worded 'all children must eat bees daily', then it impacts all children, not just those the sponsor intended.

Right, but considering the sort of people behind it, and from who I'm guessing will vote for it, should it pass do you really think those same people will vote to let those sinner gays marry, especially when the state has a "compelling reason" in "defending the sanctity of marriage" (fuck me I hate this phrase)? I really doubt it. It'd be nice if the law, should it pass, could be subverted in that way to help legalize gay marriage or help stop the war on drugs, but I really don't think it's going to happen.

Federal law trumps state law.

This is true, but states have been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for a while now without just outright banning abortion and there have been multiple attempts to undermine it and Planned Parenthood. Like Arizona's bill defining pregnancy as starting before conception, or various defunding attempts (though this is done at the federal level).

[Langy]

Right, but considering the sort of people behind it, and from who I'm guessing will vote for it, should it pass do you really think those same people will vote to let those sinner gays marry, especially when the state has a "compelling reason" in "defending the sanctity of marriage" (fuck me I hate this phrase)? I really doubt it. It'd be nice if the law, should it pass, could be subverted in that way to help legalize gay marriage or help stop the war on drugs, but I really don't think it's going to happen.

If this passes, then it's possible they wouldn't need to vote on letting gays marry. This law may do that all by itself - it would be up to the courts, not the voters.

[Mantaray]

interesting. god told me to marry my gay partner.. i do feel that american law sometimes is as funny as the writing on the doors of public toilets as people ammend, add and re-constitute various incantations of 'XYz is a w*nker'

[Nanaki]

The funny thing is, all the right-wingers getting their panties in a twist over sharia law are the same kind of people busy trying to impliment biblical law in the states. I suppose religious fundamentalism is only evil when it is not your religion that is oppressing people.

[Langy]

interesting. god told me to marry my gay partner.. i do feel that american law sometimes is as funny as the writing on the doors of public toilets as people ammend, add and re-constitute various incantations of 'XYz is a w*nker'

If part of their religion is the concept of marriage and doesn't explicitly ban same-sex marriage, then yeah, 'god told me to get gay married'.

[Mantaray]

i suppose what the next stage of this would be, is which god(s) are we all talking about? are we only talking mainstream?
'the flying spaghetti monster told me to marry my gay partner'
'that doesnt count because it's not a real religion'
'oh? religious hatred? i call unfair trial -appeal-'

[FerociousBeast]

NEWS FLASH! This just in: someone somewhere has a bad idea! Details at 11!

Proposed Initiative = not law = let's not get our panties in a twist yet, shall we?

[LoCo]

So we should wait until it is law before trying to stop it from becoming law?

Hey, lets wait until the flood waters are up to the second story before we decide to try get out of the house!

Lets wait until the lounge is engulfed in flames before we call in that forest fire!

...

[Derivative]

Proposed Initiative = not law = let's not get our panties in a twist yet, shall we?

A number of people did that with SOPA