Possible Solution to Some Problems

[Michael Fisher]

Create a sect, based on actual Biblical religion, that rejects everything to do with the government, including social security, medicare, public education, all taxes, war, and all restrictions upon individual liberty.

If they try to force you to do anything opposed to the religion, the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution overrides them.

It works.

[Kat Kanning]

That's what Jack is doing with his Seekers, basically, except it's not necessarily biblical.

[d_goddard]

For this and many other reasons, I would love to see NH pass a state-based version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
To give you an idea of how important this is to me, this is one of just 3 LSR's I'd like to see submitted this session (the other two being the "Gannon Videotape" bill and MJ legalization)

The background, in a nutshell, as SCOTUS sees it:
* The "Free Exercise" clause of the 1st amendment is not absolute; you can't freely exercise murder, for example, as part of your religion
* For religious practice to be protected by the 1st amendment, it must be "sincerely held" (easy to prove) and must not violate a "compelling interest" of the State. Example: concientious objectors can be forced to serve in war, but cannot to kill or injure the opposing forces (ie, objectors can be given "desk jobs" or hospital work)

Here's the crux:
* In 1990, SCOTUS ruled that the State does not need a complelling interest to justify a general criminal law (in this case, prohibiting use of peyote)
* In 1993, a Federal Law, the "Religious Freedoms Restoration Act" (RFRA), was passed, which instructed the courts to restore the original "compelling interest" clause
* In 1997, SCOTUS ruled RFRA unconstitutional, because it applied to all levels of government, and thus stepped over the bounds of the legislature

As such, it is generally believed that an RFRA bill passed at the state level would be upheld by SCOTUS.

To get this passed in NH, the most important first step is to identify a specific set of people who have been harmed by religious intolerance on the part of the state.
Ideally, this should be the most easy-to-empathize-with group of people that can be found. For example, a group that wishes to perform animal sacrifice on puppy dogs, but are unable to by virtue of animals cruelty laws, would not be a good choice; conversely, a Christan sect prevented from (say) wearing a large crucifix while working at a government job, would be perfect.

I frankly don't have time to find such a group (or groups) in NH between now and November 15th (the closing date for filing LSRs), but I would be happy to work with anyone who is willing to do the research to find such groups.
Email me.

[FrankChodorov]

To get this passed in NH, the most important first step is to identify a specific set of people who have been harmed by religious intolerance on the part of the state.
Ideally, this should be the most easy-to-empathize-with group of people that can be found. For example, a group that wishes to perform animal sacrifice on puppy dogs, but are unable to by virtue of animals cruelty laws, would not be a good choice; conversely, a Christan sect prevented from (say) wearing a large crucifix while working at a government job, would be perfect.

I frankly don't have time to find such a group (or groups) in NH between now and November 15th (the closing date for filing LSRs)

this is going to be harder to do in NH than any other state because we are the least church going state in the nation.

[Michael Fisher]

The Amish have won exceptions in child labor, child education, social security, war, and other areas of law. Religion essentially overrules everything but the Constitution itself.

Disclaimer: I personally disagree strongly with this method of change as my rights come from God, and not from any system of courts or pieces of paper (Constitutions). I did not say it would be a principled thing to do, and in fact it is highly unprincipled to use the system against itself, in my opinion.

I only said it would work.

Also, the Bible does not require many of the things the Amish require. Personal preference based on religion should be made absolutely distinct from core religious principles.

[Caleb]

Well, a variation of this can be used in a CD way ... without resorting to the courts.  The IRS is trying to coerce Churches into silence using the 501(c)3 muzzle.  A Church could take on the IRS pretty easily....

[Michael Fisher]

Well, a variation of this can be used in a CD way ... without resorting to the courts.  The IRS is trying to coerce Churches into silence using the 501(c)3 muzzle.  A Church could take on the IRS pretty easily....

That's the churches' faults for desiring 501c3 status rather than simple non-profit status. We've talked about this at length several times before.

501c3 churches are essentially arms of the state. They can do nothing without the state's permission.

[David]

I've thought about this a couple of times also.  Who knows if it would work.   
Since the gov'ts, local, state, and federal, only pay lip service to the so called supreme law of the land, my bet would be that it wouldn't work to well. 
All they need is a 'compelling reason'. 

There is one way it might work.
If a small group of people withdrew into their own little community.  It has to:
be a new 'town', not a take over of an existing one,
be very open and public to hopefully prevent violent gov't crackdown,
be dedicated to peacefull civil disobediance,
downplay our weapons, the deterent will not work against gov't or their spin machine, we will not win with weapons,
publicly make the case that since we don't 'benifit' from taxes, we shouldn't pay them,
make it clear to the nearby communities that this is a defensive measure by us,

Essentially we make ourselves refugees from the accepted violence of gov't in our own little ghetto.  If we can gain the simpathy or acceptance by those nearby, and be enough of a headache to gov't if they harrass us, we may succeed. 

I would love to hear comments or criticism. 

[Dave Ridley]

<< downplay our weapons, the deterent will not work against gov't or their spin machine, we will not win with weapons,>>

I agree with the idea behind this but downplaying things can actually draw more attention to them.    I think it would be better to be open about guns but also make clear they are for criminal deterrance not for aiming at the government.  They would be a key part of the former, symbolically, even in New Hampshire.

[Russell Kanning]

If you are going to use a gun against a thug ... why not a government one?

It is easier for me to not use one on anyone.

[PinoX7]

Theres a religion like that, there called the Elvians

Referance Sealab 2021
"will elvis take the place of jesus in a thousand years?"