SB 2018-188: Religious Freedom Amplification Act (Passed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Reactionary.

[_]

These seem like simple and common sense regulations in order to protect the rights of every Atlasian, regardless of their Religious affiliation.  I will gladly support and vote for this.

[Mr. Reactionary]

II-1 protects the rights of federal employees to wear cross necklaces, yarmulkes, hijabs, turbans and other religious items while staying within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) and Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981).

III-1 offers a religious exemption from prosecution for the use of peyote and other religious hallucinogens.

III-2 adopts the Supreme Court's holding in Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ___ (2015) re: prisoner beards and religious beliefs.

III-3 prevents the IRS from snooping on what pastors say at the pulpit, keeping church and state more separate.

IV-1 adopts a proposed Federal Rule from the 70s that would protect priest-penitent privilege in the federal rules.

[Lumine]

Normally I rather object to the trend of liberalization in terms of drug laws, but considering there are groups with a legitimate, centuries long history of religious use (such as peyote in the case of some Native Americans), I can see the benefit of this.

However, I'm not entirely sold on the idea of allowing certain "head covering" within the federal government, I'll have to consider that issue.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It allows for Goldman v Weinberger situations, where the miltary can make you go bareheaded if the covering interferes with safety equipment like helmets or gasmasks.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I motion for a final vote on this bill.

[Blair]

Apologies for asking just before the final vote, but would Section III 3 (the one aimed at the IRS) stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, and allow Churches to endorse political candidates?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Apologies for asking just before the final vote, but would Section III 3 (the one aimed at the IRS) stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, and allow Churches to endorse political candidates?

III-3 which prevents the IRS from snooping on what pastors say at the pulpit, keeping church and state more separate, would limit the Johnson Amendment's application at least as concerns religious sermons. That was my intent and why Sec. 501(c)(3) is being amended. This is not a full repeal of the Johnson Amendment however, as donations or campaign signs on the property are not excluded from the Johnson Amendment's scope.

[Sestak]

Apologies for asking just before the final vote, but would Section III 3 (the one aimed at the IRS) stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, and allow Churches to endorse political candidates?

III-3 which prevents the IRS from snooping on what pastors say at the pulpit, keeping church and state more separate, would limit the Johnson Amendment's application at least as concerns religious sermons. That was my intent and why Sec. 501(c)(3) is being amended. This is not a full repeal of the Johnson Amendment however, as donations or campaign signs on the property are not excluded from the Johnson Amendment's scope.

Couldn't essentially any political organization then register as a church and claim that their advertisements were online sermons?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Apologies for asking just before the final vote, but would Section III 3 (the one aimed at the IRS) stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, and allow Churches to endorse political candidates?

III-3 which prevents the IRS from snooping on what pastors say at the pulpit, keeping church and state more separate, would limit the Johnson Amendment's application at least as concerns religious sermons. That was my intent and why Sec. 501(c)(3) is being amended. This is not a full repeal of the Johnson Amendment however, as donations or campaign signs on the property are not excluded from the Johnson Amendment's scope.

Couldn't essentially any political organization then register as a church and claim that their advertisements were online sermons?

They'd be subject to the sincerity of belief test of Thomas v. Review Board which would likely screen out such fraud. Recall, the language above specifies "non-fraudulent".

[Lumine]

I object to a final vote, there's certainly remaining avenues of debate to be explored.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I respectfully motion for cloture on this bill.

[Pericles]

I support the motion.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I support the motion.

[_]

I support the motion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

sweet 2/3rds

[Lumine]

Right, no need to hold a vote as 2/3 of the Senate have expressed support.

Gentlemen, we will now move to a final vote. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Pericles]

Aye.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[_]

AYE

[Lumine]

Abstain.

[Lumine]

This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Lumine]

With 4 votes in favor this passes the Atlasian Senate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

People's Regional Senate:
Passed 4-0-1 in the Atlasian Senate assembled

[/quote]