rumitoid

In recent years, advocacy around religious liberty has become closely associated with America’s religious right. For conservative Christians, standing up for freedom of religion often means defending bakers who don’t want to make cakes for q***r weddings or business owners who don’t want to pay for contraception coverage.

For Scott Warren, a 37-year-old geography teacher from Ajo, Arizona, freedom of religion means making sure migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the U.S.-Mexico border don’t die of dehydration.

Last week, a federal judge acknowledged in a ruling that Warren has a legal right to put these religious beliefs into practice. Experts say the decision is one of the first times that progressive religious beliefs related to immigration have been protected this way ― highlighting the fact that conservative Christians don’t have a monopoly on the right to religious liberty.
Scott Warren is a volunteer for the humanitarian aid group No More Deaths in Ajo, Arizona. (Photo: John Moore via Getty Images)

For the past two years, Warren has been fighting federal misdemeanor charges for leaving water, food and other supplies for migrants in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Activists with No More Deaths, a Unitarian Universalist ministry that Warren volunteers for, say dozens of migrants have died crossing this stretch of desert along the border.

The U.S. government charged Warren for “abandonment of property” and for “operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area” ― in other words, using a truck to carry humanitarian aid supplies into a remote, restricted area.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Raner Collins found Warren guilty of the vehicle charge, but importantly, acquitted him of the property charge. The judge argued that even though the government successfully proved that Warren did, in fact, abandon property in the wildlife refuge, the teacher’s humanitarian efforts are protected by his right to religious freedom.

“Defendant was obliged to leave water jugs because of his religious beliefs, and the Government’s regulation imposes a substantial burden on this exercise of his religion,” Collins wrote in his decision.

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of Columbia University’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project, said the decision is a small step, but “extremely significant.” She said she hasn’t seen many successful religious exemption claims for traditionally progressive issues, such as immigrants’ rights, environmental protection and anti-death penalty protests.

“Ultimately, what this decision says is that there are other ways that the government can protect its alleged interest in ‘securing the border’ than by prosecuting a person of faith who is trying to prevent people from dying of dehydration,” Platt told HuffPost.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Wow II!

Liberty Tree

He is a liberal judge appointed by Bill Clinton. Did he make this decision protecting religious freedom or is that just a ruse and he is really trying to protect i*****l i*******ts?

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

In today’s politicized environment everything is prejudged. The issue is considered only after certain question have been answered and then the issue is looked at colored by the answer of the questions. If it is a legal court case the questions are: is the judge a democrat or a republican appointee, Is the judge a liberal or conservative. Agreement of disagreement with a ruling is dependent upon whether the judge is of the “correct” persuasion. It is nearly the same in all public issues.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Was Religion Entered As A Defense For The Accused ??

Maybe, If It Weren't Too Much Trouble
You Could Link Your Stories
You Had Plenty Of Time To Cut, Paste & Post A New Topic

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I doubt it.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I was unable to find the official written court ruling. From the Huff & Puff Post, they had:

” The U.S. government charged Warren for “abandonment of property” and for “operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area” ― in other words, using a truck to carry humanitarian aid supplies into a remote, restricted area.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Raner Collins found Warren guilty of the vehicle charge, but importantly, acquitted him of the property charge. The judge argued that even though the government successfully proved that Warren did, in fact, abandon property in the wildlife refuge, the teacher’s humanitarian efforts are protected by his right to religious freedom.

“Defendant was obliged to leave water jugs because of his religious beliefs, and the Government’s regulation imposes a substantial burden on this exercise of his religion,” Collins wrote in his decision.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Yes, it was.

Rumitoid tends to leave out important facts.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

You truly need to learn how to post so that important facts are highlighted. After all these years, even an abysmal technology person, such as I, has learned how to perform such basics.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Ow!

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Wh**ever he said it was it isn't. Does that clarify?

rumitoid

Unreal. Please share, on a point of moral obligation, if you agree or disagree with the actions of this person.

rumitoid

Very sad view of our Judicial system. If you were a staunch either-party member, could you objectively follow the law? Work for t***h and justice no matter where it leads?

rumitoid

My bad. Sorry.

rumitoid

Please share how. If you are going to just criticize, instead of commenting on the topic, help me specifically. What exactly would you have me do differently?