Can a Court Reject You for Your Religious Beliefs?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 бер 2024
- Should your peaceful, loving religious beliefs disqualify you from participating in public life?
America’s founders didn’t think so.
That’s why the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the government from imposing a religious test for any federal office or position of public trust.
Yet freedoms like these are never more than one generation away from extinction.
For example, in early 2023, one Missouri attorney interviewed potential jurors in preparation for a trial, asking them if any had attended “a conservative Christian church,” meaning a church that held biblical views on marriage and sexuality. Three would-be jurors confirmed that they did but that they’d be impartial during trial.
But one of the attorneys demanded the dismissal of these three Christian jurors, claiming that there was “no way to rehabilitate” someone who held these views.
Shockingly, the judge rebuffed the attorney’s claim that these Christian jurors could not be impartial but then disqualified them anyway “to err on the side of caution.”
The nation’s lower courts are split in three different directions on the issue. Some allow jurors to be excluded because of their religious views. Others allow exclusion based on both religious viewpoint and affiliation. And still others disallow these discriminatory strikes.
The government should never treat people of faith like second-class citizens. Our freedoms don’t depend on whether government officials agree with our beliefs. And the Constitution protects our right to live those beliefs in the public square to promote human flourishing.
Like all other liberties, this is one that won’t protect itself. That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom exists-to defend the God-given, constitutionally protected freedoms of every American.
You can watch more videos like this and learn how you can stand for freedom at ADFLegal.org/Freedom-Matters.
This is unconstitutional. Hopefully those jurors did not leave quietly and apparently there are those who are fighting back. Senators and Congressmen need to be paying attention and working for their constituents rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" which also means freedom from religion. no one can force anyone to accept another person's religious beliefs as their own. the gov't hasn't made any laws restricting your religion. so why preach fear of that being a reality?
My free exercise of religion includes proselytizing
@@Rightonright go right ahead.
You haven't seen the new legislation calling any criticism of Israel "anti-semetic" and illegal? Do you understand this includes passages from the Holy Bible? You need to educate yourself on current events before you open your idiotic mouth
what peaceful, loving religious beliefs? i didn't know there was such a thing. i always understood it was "my way or the highway" when it came to religious people.
Nope, it's God's way or the hell way.
Good one😂!
@@Rightonright so, what is god's way? do you know? as for hell, what exactly is hell? do you know?
@@jensonee yes to both
@@jensonee science tells us it took evolution four billion years for life as we know it to evolve. In that time, evolution figured out using a fertilized egg, that time was reduced to roughly nine months. Populating the earth is now a rapid process. Humans kick evolution in the teeth by interrupting population increase. Why? Is evolution wrong?
Courts pick and choose jurors for a wide variety of reasons. I'm sure they have excluded potential jurors on certain cases b/c they were non-religious. This is just the ADF trying to pick a fight over nothing (AGAIN)
🐂💩
🐂💩
People of faith are second class citizens. When will you learn that??
That’s bullshit. There is no evidence of that. There are tons of religious carve outs for businesses and professionals such as medical doctors that allow you to be bigoted all you want.
In any case, you don’t understand how jury selection works. Prospective jurors for Trumps criminal case were rejected if they were big fans of his or if they hate him.
This video misrepresents, perhaps disingenuously, the concept of "rehabilitation" in a jury selection context.
Parties at trial have the privilege of trying to remove from the jury any bias that might go against their side - they have to make their own judgments how to do this. If one side finds sign of such bias in a potential juror, the judge and the opposing side have the opportunity to "rehabilitate" the person with further questioning to give them the opportunity to support the conclusion that they have no bias that would affect the outcome of the trial.
Attacking the use of the term "rehabilitation" is an attack on the prerogative of a party at trial to attempt to remove bias from the jury. Fortunately, the Supreme Court this year refused to challenge this prerogative.
Maybe an attorney would deem my atheism inconvenient to their client. That would be galling, but it would be their prerogative, for the sake of trying to eliminate bias against their client's interest from the jury.
And that attorney would not necessarily be acting as an agent of the government. I suppose there would be justification for a one-sided restriction on the right of prosecutors to question jurors about their religious beliefs. By extension, we could apply that justification to any criminal trials when the state is a party. For civil trials, there's no justification.
Wow! Can we be friends? This isn't as it appears and delving further into WHY they won't actually EDUCATE but KEEP INSISTING there's only ONE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT when the CHURCHES ARE THEIR OWN SEPARATE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS HAVE THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS and that MANY become involved by these RELIGIOUS PARTIES through their CONTRACTS to provide Services on behalf of "our government " and are independent from congressional oversight as well as little control by the President leaving them to promulgate laws as they interpret them and not be held accountable when "simply doing their jobs as they see fit according to each incident..and that making human mistakes is a given In these jobs given so much stress and responsibility therefore negating any claims for harms AND that the ultimate mission for this "useful immunity "?? Is saving as many souls as they can regardless of any PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL DAMAGES because in the END IT'S JUSTIFIED because at least the persons affected were FORCED TO OBEY THEIR GOD especially when these churches are the ones SEIZING CHILDREN from Parents/Grandparents/FAMILIES and not giving it a second thought because they're the CHOSEN ONES TO THROW OUT FREEWILL and GOD'S INTENDED PURPOSE so long as they can maintain that multi billion dollar contract in doing so they are two fold JUSTIFIED leaving non abusive, non neglecting parents Grieving, shocked, destroyed when NOT RETURNING THE CHILDREN is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN THEIR TRUE INTENDED MISSION and when corruption and greed for money is the seizing of those who aren't able to defend themselves in the name of SAVING THEIR SOULS and that CASUALTIES are a FACT OF WAR and these religious nuts state it's a war against good and evil....my ass
🐂💩
Womp womp