Judge's Ruling Shows Religious Freedom Isn't Just For The Christian Right

[Pope George Ringo II]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scott-warren-religious-freedom-act_n_5ddd4c9be4b00149f724ff89

In recent years, advocacy around religious liberty has become closely associated with America’s religious right. For conservative Christians, standing up for freedom of religion often means defending bakers who don’t want to make cakes for queer weddings or business owners who don’t want to pay for contraception coverage.

For Scott Warren, a 37-year-old geography teacher from Ajo, Arizona, freedom of religion means making sure migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the U.S.-Mexico border don’t die of dehydration.

Last week, a federal judge acknowledged in a ruling that Warren has a legal right to put these religious beliefs into practice. Experts say the decision is one of the first times that progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected this way ― highlighting the fact that conservative Christians don’t have a monopoly on the right to religious liberty.

For the past two years, Warren has been fighting federal misdemeanor charges for leaving water, food and other supplies for migrants in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Activists with No More Deaths, a Unitarian Universalist ministry that Warren volunteers for, say dozens of migrants have died crossing this stretch of desert along the border.

I wouldn't say that religion on balance is a positive thing, but this does go on the right side of that ledger.

[Major Nikon]

1. The law still needs to go

Far more harm than good has come from it. There needs to be a federal law protecting people from prosecution for performing a humanitarian mission. It should have nothing to do with religion.

[Pope George Ringo II]

3. No question it needs to go.

Religious privilege is wrong when it's a law which lets people discriminate, it's wrong when it's a law which lets people refuse to vaccinate their children, and it's wrong when it's a law which prohibits nonbelievers from humanitarian activity.

But if one guy in the desert is going to to be an oasis of decency in the religious abyss, I believe I ought to acknowledge it. He's not going to balance their books, but he's trying.

[Major Nikon]

4. I can certainly acknowledge the original effort without acknowledging the value of the law

I suspect a reich-wing court will eventually strike down the ruling so I'm not convinced the effort used to justify it is going to ultimately prevail anyway. I also think in the mean time it may be counterproductive towards passing a new law that could protect such people.

[guillaumeb]

2. Recommended.

I posted a similar article.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212717114

Imagine criminalizing behavior intended to save lives.