How can I prove that my "religious freedom" is "religious"?

[DetlefK]

Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say, Im supposed to do a thing.
But doing that thing would mean violating my religion.
So I refuse.
But not doing the thing gets me into trouble.
So I have to communicate that I refuse to do the thing because doing it would violate my freedom to exercise my religion unmolested.
Then someone claims that the religion is just a lip-service and a pretext to me and that it's really about me having mundane/selfish/bigoted reasons.

How can I prove that I indeed do have religious beliefs that keep me from doing the thing?
Is there a list of requirements that a belief must have to qualify for "religious freedom"?
Is there an official list of officially recognized religions that confer "religious freedom" upon claim?

[cbayer]

1. This is exactly the quagmire they have created.

Since there isn't an official list at all, everyone can claim anything.

Unintended consequences. This thing will fall.

[guillaumeb]

2. but what if there is another point here?

Mike Pence has made no secret of his desire to run for President. He is receiving a huge amount of free publicity. That helps him. Plus he can pose as the defender of religion and values. THAT helps him. Talk about the incoherence of the law does not matter to people who are likely to vote in the GOP primaries.

Given the relative success of incoherent clowns like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rand Paul and other GOP Presidential candidates, there is no need for Pence to present a coherent idea about anything.

The GOP will probably use the controversy as proof that only the GOP stands for traditional American values.

[cbayer]

4. Here's an interesting twist:GOP Presidential Hopefuls Rise To Defend Indiana Law

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Rise To Defend Indiana Law That Many See As Anti-Gay

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/presidential-candidates-indiana-law_n_6973280.html

[stone space]

6. If this is where the GOP hopefuls really want to draw their line in the sand, ...

...the words "please proceed" come to mind.

[cbayer]

8. I could not agree more.

It shows exactly how seriously they have tin ears. Even the Governor is backing away from this at this point.

[stone space]

13. When you've lost NASCAR, it may be time to re-evaluate your position.

[cbayer]

14. It's too late for some of them. They've gone too far and can never come back.

[guillaumeb]

9. great article

My bet is that not one GOP candidate will condemn this effort to legalize bigotry. One or two might say something about the wording, or insist that the aim is not to legalize bigotry, but the fact that this type of law is passed and defended shows how successful the GOP theocrats have been at pushing the debate to the extreme right.

Plus it will be framed by the GOP as another attack on "American values" by the legion of freedom hating, godless, un-American communists and sodomites. All great for boosting the GOP vote in a Presidential election.

[cbayer]

11. However, perhaps for the first time we are see some real life, serious fallout

from this position.

When it is just a platform, it's pretty harmless. When they move it into actual law, the whole thing begins to fall apart.

This may be the silver lining. Indiana is getting bashed by this.

[DetlefK]

5. Those people you listed never made it farther than "flavor of the week".

Being flamboyant and outrageous gives a pronounced but short spike in publicity. You have to keep up with being flamboyant and outrageous, day by day, week by week. (Have you read something about Lady Gaga recently??? Or Miley Cyrus??? Or Britney Spears??? Or Sarah Palin???)

With so many candidates being flamboyant and outrageous at the same time, it occurs naturally that the publicity shifts between them, effectively diminishing the individual returns for everyone.

Who became the republican candidate in 2012? The most boring guy of them all. The grudgingly accepted compromise who always lingered around in the background but never received much enthusiasm. The suit.




I doubt that "We-care-so-much-about-Indiana-that-we-provoked-outrage-and-boycotts" is a viable political strategy.
That's like Ted Cruz claiming that he has a track-record of getting stuff done, namely preventing Obama from getting stuff done.




If Mike Pence wants to pander to the crazies, then he should do it somewhere where people outside of the bubble won't hear him. Maybe he overestimated the size of the bubble.

[guillaumeb]

7. It is all about the turnout

Nice point:

"If Mike Pence wants to pander to the crazies, then he should do it somewhere where people outside of the bubble won't hear him. Maybe he overestimated the size of the bubble."

It is all about increasing turnout in a Presidential election. This will do it. Great point about Romney:

"Who became the republican candidate in 2012? The most boring guy of them all. The grudgingly accepted compromise who always lingered around in the background but never received much enthusiasm. The suit. "

Doubt Romney would appreciate it.

[stone space]

3. How does an atheist Conscientious Objector prove the authenticity...

...of his or her deeply held beliefs that War is immoral?

[guillaumeb]

10. How can you say that?

WAR is the American way

[stone space]

12. Militarism is a Religion. It's part of the Civil Religion.

[guillaumeb]

15. true

does that make the nuclear bomb the final sacrament?

[stone space]

18. "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

[AtheistCrusader]

17. One can't. And it won't save you from war either.

It just means your happy ass is going into combat with a medical kit or a radio, and no weapon.

And there's nothing wrong with that, noble tools each, though a conscientious objector may be stuck with just the med kit, as calling in an artillery strike with a radio isn't much different from pulling the trigger yourself.

So, you can't prove it, but it can get you a stretcher and a med kit so you can drag injured people out of a killing field in some fucking hell hole we've made somewhere around the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. You can't. And you can see evidence of it right here on DU when defenders of all things religious

still attack religious groups like Scientology. They have a 'I know it when I see it' whitelist of Approved Religions(TM), but they're just special pleading. Wasting everyone's time.

If one could prove a religion, there would only BE, one religion, based on the mutually exclusive criteria around which god is which according to their own bullshit.