Question about the Hobby Lobby decision.
HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection. On the contrary, the scope of RLUIPA shows that Congress was confident of the ability of the federal courts to weed out insincere claims.
RLUIPA applies to “institutionalized persons,” a category that consists primarily of prsoners, and by the time of RLUIPA’s enactment, the propensity of some prisoners to assert claims of dubious sincerity was well documented.
29
Nevertheless, after our decision in City of Boerne, Congress enacted RLUIPA to preserve the right of prisoners to raise religious liberty claims. If Congress thought that the federal courts were up to the job of dealing with insincere prisoner claims, there is no reason to believe that Congress limited RFRA’s reach out of concern for the seemingly less difficult task of doing the same in corporate cases. And if, as HHS seems to cooncede, Congress wanted RFRA to apply to nonprofit corporations, see, Reply Brief in No. 13–354, at 7–8, what reason is there to think that
Congress believed that spotting insincere claims would be tougher in cases involving for-profits?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
In my experience, American courts do not usually hear cases that require them to decide questions of theology. And if a court considers a question of opinion, either the court makes a carefully based judgment and usually requires expert opinions and does not simply rely on the expressed opinion of one of the parties. Now I could be wrong. Maybe my experience is just not broad enough.
The Hobby Lobby case seems to assume that Hobby Lobby's beliefs are sincere. According to the opinion in Hobby Lobby, the government did not question Hobby Lobby's sincerity. And according to the Hobby Lobby decision, RIFRA requires that religious beliefs of a party relying on RIFRA be "sincere."
There is question about the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious objection to abortion and to certain birth control methods. They sell products they buy from China, a country in which abortions are commonplace -- and therefore do not hesitate to indirectly support the abortion policies of China. (Their purchases help the Chinese economy.) And their 401(K) plans have invested or invest in companies that manufacture contraceptives possibly even abortive products.
So why wasn't the issue of the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's beliefs questioned by the government?
And what is the test a court is supposed to apply to determine the "sincerity" of a religious belief of a party before it? And if there is a test, is the judge supposed to apply it? Is it an issue of fact or law? If it is an issue of fact, is it an opinion? Is there such a thing as an expert on religious sincerity?
And if there is no test (I can't see how there could be) that the judge can apply?
I'm confused here. This is not an area in which I have done any research. Can somebody help me out here?
Is "sincerity of religious belief" something that has any meaning in a statute under our Constitution?
I would appreciate any opinions on this. Today is the first time I have asked this question or thought about it. I haven't done any research. Am I over-complicating things? What do you think?
= new reply since forum marked as read
