Speaker says all exemptions must be equal
Brock Sisney
Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Campus Life
The majority opinion stated that precedent favors the Amish. The Amish ground their claim for exemption in their literal interpretation of the Bible and that Amish educational practices are consistent with the state's interest to secure access to education for each citizen.
According to Mahoney, the dissenting opinion should have been followed because the court's decision favors the rights of groups over individuals. The dissenting opinion expressed the belief the state has a compelling interest to enforce certain basic rights to children, like the right of access to education. Mahoney added to the dissenting opinion with his own take.
"Majority affirms a parent's right to religious freedom at the expense of a child's right to equal opportunity, and this clearly misapplies the conception of liberty expressed in (John) Rawls' familiar liberty principle, 'Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal, basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others," Mahoney said.
Mahoney dismissed the argument backing the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision made by fellow liberal Martha Nussbaum, author of "Liberty of Conscience."
"We should reject Nussbaum's claim because moral equality is the foundational moral norm for liberalism," Mahoney said. "Egalitarian liberals should insist that religious freedom is something each is entitled to on the basis of equality, a secular political norm."
Mahoney argued that intrinsic merit is not enough to justify an exemption claim and there are no compelling reasons to treat religious values as special cases.
The 1987 Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County case before the State Supreme Court of Alabama was cited as one of the pratfalls when courts define religious belief. The court made the argument that secular humanism constitutes a religious belief because it "makes a statement about supernatural existence."
"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, it would follow that an atheist has a religious conviction simply because she denies the existence of a supernatural being," Mahoney said. "It is worth pointing out an ironic consequence that would follow if this became the legal standard for what counts as a religion in American law. Namely, an atheist would now be entitled to make religious-based exemption claims on First Amendment grounds."
According to Mahoney, the dissenting opinion should have been followed because the court's decision favors the rights of groups over individuals. The dissenting opinion expressed the belief the state has a compelling interest to enforce certain basic rights to children, like the right of access to education. Mahoney added to the dissenting opinion with his own take.
"Majority affirms a parent's right to religious freedom at the expense of a child's right to equal opportunity, and this clearly misapplies the conception of liberty expressed in (John) Rawls' familiar liberty principle, 'Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal, basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others," Mahoney said.
Mahoney dismissed the argument backing the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision made by fellow liberal Martha Nussbaum, author of "Liberty of Conscience."
"We should reject Nussbaum's claim because moral equality is the foundational moral norm for liberalism," Mahoney said. "Egalitarian liberals should insist that religious freedom is something each is entitled to on the basis of equality, a secular political norm."
Mahoney argued that intrinsic merit is not enough to justify an exemption claim and there are no compelling reasons to treat religious values as special cases.
The 1987 Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County case before the State Supreme Court of Alabama was cited as one of the pratfalls when courts define religious belief. The court made the argument that secular humanism constitutes a religious belief because it "makes a statement about supernatural existence."
"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, it would follow that an atheist has a religious conviction simply because she denies the existence of a supernatural being," Mahoney said. "It is worth pointing out an ironic consequence that would follow if this became the legal standard for what counts as a religion in American law. Namely, an atheist would now be entitled to make religious-based exemption claims on First Amendment grounds."
Be the first to comment on this story