1 / 30

PUTTING OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES

PUTTING OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES. A Framework for Protection of Duty of Conscience and Articulation of Religious Liberties. YOU PUT NEW WINE IN NEW BOTTLES. Neither do men put new wine in old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish;

gloria-mendoza
Télécharger la présentation

PUTTING OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PUTTING OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES A Framework for Protection of Duty of Conscience and Articulation of Religious Liberties (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  2. YOU PUT NEW WINE IN NEW BOTTLES Neither do men put new wine in old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. St. Matthew 9:17 (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  3. PUTTING OLD WINE IN OLD BOTTLES BIBLE (KJV) Foundation of Western Culture and Political Theory OLDBOTTLES OF FAITH IN GOD AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  4. PUTTING OLD WINE IN OLD BOTTLES 1760-1865 Political and legal thought and public action beginning with King George III and eliminating by amendment a constitutional guarantee of slavery OLDBOTTLES of FAITH IN GOD, CHOICE OF CIVIC VIRTUE and a RULE OF LAW founded on a CONSTITUTION (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  5. OLD WINEAXIOM # 1 There is a God, the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of the Universe (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  6. OLD WINEAXIOM # 2 In His Wisdom, God’s Will or His Law (Higher-Moral Law) is intended to be understood, voluntarily obeyed and be a source of blessings available to all mankind (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  7. OLD WINEAXIOM # 3 All mankind, rulers and nations are subject to God and Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  8. OLD WINEAXIOM # 4 Choosing Higher-Moral Law leads to happiness (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  9. OLD WINEBELIEF # 1 Higher-Moral Law is most clearly defined by sacred texts including the Bible (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  10. OLD WINEBELIEF # 2 Part of conscience is Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  11. OLD WINEBELIEF # 3 Examples of virtue enhance learning of the Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  12. OLD WINEBELIEF # 4 Long term effects of choices show if choices complied with Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  13. OLD WINECHOICE # 1 Exercise your freedom to choose Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  14. OLD WINECHOICE # 2 Teach your family by precept and example how to comply with Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  15. OLD WINECHOICE # 3 Support voluntary, public groups whose standards and actions reaffirm Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  16. OLD WINECHOICE # 4 Actively work to secure liberties protecting the right of all to choose adherence to Higher-Moral Law (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  17. OLD WINE IS BETTER No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new; for he saith, The old is better. St. Luke 5:39 (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  18. PUTTING NEW WINE IN NEW BOTTLES 1866-1952 Shift from Theistic to Agnostic Foundation Morality Based on Man’s Law NEW WINE IN NEW BOTTLES (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  19. PUTTING NEW WINE IN NEW BOTTLES 1953-2003 Redefining Education, Family, Religion, and Morality NEW WINE IN NEWBOTTLE (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  20. WEAKNESS OF NEW BOTTLES For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, andhewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. Jeremiah 2:13 (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  21. PUTTING OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES 1993-2012 Change principles and form of government so as most likely to effect happiness and safety OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  22. RFRA (1993) • 1990 Smith opinion, (494 US 872) • No free exercise of religion by itself • When statute general in scope without exceptions • 1993 Congress passes RFRA, (42 USSC 2000bb) • Compelling governmental interest • Least restrictive means • 1997 City of Bourne opinion, (521 U.S. 507) • RFRA binding on federal government • RFRA not binding on states (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  23. POST-1990 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS INTERPRETING “SMITH” • 1993 City of Hialeah opinion, (494 US 872) Facially neutral ordinance is still unconstitutional if intentionally discriminatory against a religion • 2010 Christian Legal Society, (130 S.Ct. 2971) Universal limitation on association; restrictions on a club’s membership that indirectly impacts those based on religious belief is allowed under Smith. (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  24. RLUIPA (2000) • Applies to State Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons • Requires “substantial burden” to exist • Based on Tax-Spend & Commerce Powers • Must satisfy “compelling governmental interest test” • Must satisfy “least restrictive means” (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  25. POST-1990 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS APPLYING STATUTES • 2005 Cutter v. Wilkinson, (544 U.S. 709) Protections facially applied to religious claims based on beliefs of Aryan Nations, (separation of faces)), Asatru or Odinism, the polytheistic religions of Vikings, including Thor, a practicing ”witch” of the Wiccan religion, and a Satanist. • 2006 Gonzales v. UDV, (546 U.S. 418) RFRA requires federal government to show how compelling interest is in fact impeded by allowing requested conduct (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  26. RLUIPA (2000) • Applies to State Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons • Requires “substantial burden” to exist • Based on Tax-Spend & Commerce Powers • Must satisfy “compelling government interest” • Must use “least restrictive means” (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  27. STATES ADOPTIIG RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTIONS AL AZ, CN, FL, ID, IL, LA, MO, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  28. YEARS BY NUMBER OF STATES TAKING ACTION YEAR # OF STATES 1993 1 1994 1 1998 1 1999 5 2000 3 2002 1 2003 1 2009 1 2010 1 TOTAL 15 (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  29. WHY UTAH NEEDS ITS OWN RFRA • The migration to Utah that began in 1847 was based on a need to find religious toleration on the most basic level. It is needed for all who come. • Utah joined the Union only after a forty year battle where many lost homes and families by reason of federal disapproval of religious beliefs and practices. Doing so now would protect basic individual, family and voluntary associational rights that are unprotected. • Since 1993, Utah has more protections for conscience and related speech in public schools than any other state. Why not include other government functions? • As June 2009, Utah’s population reflects a long-term growing diversity in belief: 61% LDS; 6.6% Catholic; 13.4 Other Christian; .4% Jewish; 12.9% None-Atheist-Agnostic. (Gallup Poll Jan – Jun 2009) (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

  30. JUST ASK ME (c) 2012 Matt and Janet Hilton

More Related