From: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:45:10 GMT

THIS is going to be an unusual message because it comes from Australia.  
That also means, of course, that it is going to be of marginal relevance - I 
doubt that US courts pay much attention to a decision from a court in the 
British Commonwealth system.
	It's just that I have been flipping through the postings on the RFRA 
with some interest as one of my favourite fields of study is Constitutional 
law.  I'm no expert on the matter though, just an undergraduate.  

	We don't have any equivalent to the RFRA but we do have a WW II 
decision on this type of issue.  It is (or was, at the time of the case) a 
well-known part of The Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine that all forms of human 
govt are devices of the AntiChrist and that human govts therefore need not 
be obeyed by the chosen.

	The Australian Govt instituted conscription for the war 
against the Japanese; JWs decided not to cooperate.  The govt passed 
legislation outlawing the JWs.  JWs applied to the High Court of 
Australia to declare the Act unconstitutional as infringing the 
guarantee of religious freedom in the Constitution Act 1900. 
	The HCA held to the effect that any guarantee is subject to the 
qualification that the practices, institutions, etc. of any religion cannot 
subvert the Constitution which is the source of that freedom, that is, you 
can't bite the hand that feeds you.  Allowing the JWs to refuse 
conscription would substantially impair Australia's warfighting capability 
and therefore its existence as a country.  Therefore it would subvert the 
Constitution.  Therefore the JWs lost the case.
	The actual language used was of course not so loose, but that 
was the substance of it.  

	As an aside, it's interesting that the JWs actually went to 
court.  The HCA would have fallen into that class of institutions of 
govt that no JW should -strictly speaking- recognise.  I guess 
they weighed the consequences of a default judgment and decided to go 
ahead.  Practicality vs Religious virtuosity.  

	Taking wine at communion might not subvert the Constitution.  Taking 
peyote, come to think of it, might not subvert the Constitution.  Praying 
over animals before sacrificing them etc. might not subvert the 
Constitution.  Therefore these practices should be legal.  Judges 
should use their common sense.  

	Satanic sacrifices might be more of a borderline case - in fact, my 
money's on it being illegal anywhere.  Any religion that advocates the use 
of cocaine even in circumstances where it would be absolutely inappropriate (
eg. when driving; and other activities requiring physical co-ordination and 
accurate perception of reality) would also probably be illegal 
anywhere.

Does the judgment approximate to any US rule?  If so, how did this whole 
fuss over peyote and the RFRA come about?  Seems to me that there is 
something not right about the actual case that decided it was okay to for 
the govt to legislate to ban peyote.  I'm thinking along the lines of, 
was the initial legislation worded too broadly.


Paul.    





	 
From: stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:06:30 GMT
Subject: Movies in the public domain
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino