Iowa religious liberty bill is a neon ‘unwelcome’ sign

Feb 16, 2018

By Kathie Obradovich

Conservative state senators took a novel approach this week to promote their bill on religious liberty:  They argued that former President Bill Clinton and the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy were champions of the idea.

Sen. Dennis Guth, R-Klemme, even read part of a speech that Clinton gave when he signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in 1993:

“What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion,” Clinton said in 1993. “This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, states that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it shows a compelling interest. The government would also have to show that it is using the least restrictive means possible.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

One comment on “Iowa religious liberty bill is a neon ‘unwelcome’ sign”

  • @OP – “What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion,” Clinton said in 1993.

    Presumably that is proof that they are interfering with someone else’s freedom of/from religion and the government needs to see everyone’s rights are respected and protected!

    “This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress.
    We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

    I have to wonder how “vigilant” they were in seeking *a very high level of proof” when looking at supporting evidence for their god beliefs and mythology!

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

    It sounds very like: “We have made up this crap, and are going to deny the debunking evidence is sufficient proof to discard it or exclude it”!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.