Reply
Fri 25 Nov, 2005 04:58 pm
Last night the conversation at the table (as usual) took a turn to the political, and an interesting question ultimately came about:
What if a religious leader wanted to sell a product and advertised for it (like some sort of religious version of gatorade), but it turned out the product wouldn't be very safe for the public? Assuming he already had it out on the market, would some sort regulatory agency be able to stop the person from advertising for it, or does his "free speech" or "religious freedom" protect him somehow?
Most of us at the table thought that the health risk to the pubic would probably be enough justification to force some sort of gag order on being able to advertise for it, and ultimately stop production of such a thing.
However, a few people said that they would have to leave the advertising aspect of it alone and focus strictly on stopping the creation of such a product (like shutting down the plant for health risks to the public). At most, they conceded that maybe a warning would be required on the ads, but that's it. They say his first amendment right to free speech would allow him to advertise even for that.
What do you think?
Freedom of and from religion is the right to believe and practice one's religion without interference from the Government.
Selling a consumer product does not fall under that protection, I would think.
Re: Interesting Thanksgiving Day dinner question
JustanObserver wrote:What if a religious leader wanted to sell a product and advertised for it (like some sort of religious version of gatorade), but it turned out the product wouldn't be very safe for the public? Assuming he already had it out on the market, would some sort regulatory agency be able to stop the person from advertising for it, or does his "free speech" or "religious freedom" protect him somehow?
If the religious leader could prove that the product was somehow required as a part of their religious doctrine then they could POSSIBLY find protection under the "religious freedom" protections of the 1st Amendment. Unless it's a well established practice and confined to members of the religion the odds of getting that protection recognized is pretty slim (i.e. alomst impossible). Several grooups have tried this sort of exemption over the years for things like LSD and majaruna and I can only think of one group (a Native American group as I recall) that prevailed.
Absent that sort of exclusion the product would fall under standard commerce and consumer protection laws/regulations.
fishin',
If its the Native Americans involved in the case about religious use of Peyote, I think even that was struck down (if that was what you were referring to). The argument I believe was that the state has a right to prosecute/prevent the use of drugs as long as it was something that applied to all of the states citizens and did not focus on one particular religion for persecution.
A similar case exists with those who practice "Santeria," which allows for animal sacrifice (chickens, I believe). However, in that case the legislation was struck down since, while neutral in its wording, was applied in a discriminatory fashion against those who practiced that religion.
An interesting conundrum, to say the least...
JustanObserver wrote:fishin',
If its the Native Americans involved in the case about religious use of Peyote, I think even that was struck down (if that was what you were referring to). The argument I believe was that the state has a right to prosecute/prevent the use of drugs as long as it was something that applied to all of the states citizens and did not focus on one particular religion for persecution.
It wasn't completely struck down - it was partially struck down. The portion of the law that required the states to comply was thrown out as an unconstitutional intrusion into state governence. The law still applies on all Federal lands and territories however.
Applying your original question to the states would be to broad without narrowing down a specific jurisdiction and looking at their laws.