[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: 666 Case Enters The Texas Courts - A Test Upon The Religious Freedom Act A Texas crop duster has been told that he cannot apply for renewal of his pesticide applicator's license unless he is willing to forgo the obligations of his religion. For a number of years, Gene McArthur, had flown as commercial pilot for Texas company contracted by the Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation. Besides having a commercial pilot's license, McArthur had a commercial pesticide applicator's license to comply with contract obligations, until he came up against Section 666 of the Federal Health and Human Services Code (§666). Section 666, paragraph (a)(13) directed states receiving federal welfare funds to require applicants for professional, occupational, recreational, driver's and marriage licenses to indentify themselves with a Social Security Number (SSN) in order to secure the license. Mr. McArthur observes a practice of his Christian religion where he does not identify himself with a SSN because of its universal use as an identification number. The belief is based upon the teachings in the Holy Bible, the book of Revelation. HHS §666 was instituted to put some teeth into each state's mechanisms for child support enforcement against "Dead-Beat-Dads." Mr. McArthur, however, has never been a dead-beat dad. After Gene McArthur discovered in February of 2004 that his 2003 license renewal application had never been processed by the Texas Department of Agriculture, he tried to work his way through a labyrinth of regulations that he thought would enable him to renew his license without identifying with a SSN. Susan Combs, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), submitted a request for Attorney General Gregg Abbott to render an opinion upon the justifications the TDA was using to deny Mr. McArthur's license renewal application. Gregg Abbott opined that §666 gave the TDA no choice but to deny Mr. McArthur's license, despite his request being motivated his religion. Missing from the Texas Attorney General's opinion was any commentary on a recently enacted Texas law known as the Religious Freedom Act. It was enacted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Texas case, Boerne v. Flores, where the Court said that the Federal Religious Freedom Act (42 USC §2000bb) did not apply to the States due to Constitutional constraints. Both the Texas and U.S. versions of the law would require the government to prove it has a compelling interest to require a SSN from Mr. McArthur specifically, not just to all applicants in general. If the government could prove that compelling interest, Texas would then have to show that there was no other means to accomplish their interest with Mr. McArthur in his specific situation. What was missing from the Boerne v. Flores case, that is different from McArthur's case, is a tie to a federally funded program or federally directed requirement. Not only is the Federal §666 the driving force behind the requirement, the TDA licensing requirement was declared by the Texas legislature as dependent upon receiving Federal funds for the licensing program. Thus, the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act very well may apply in McArthur's case. At one time, religious objectors to the use of the SSN as a personal identifier prevailed against the government in Federal courts. The Courts used the " compelling interest test" as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder in all cases where free exercise of religion was substantially burdened. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to use a much less stringent standard referred to as the "rational basis test." In Bowen v. Roy, a SSN religious objection case where the "rational basis test" was applied, the government's preferrences for administrative convenience trumped the complainant's religious objections. Bowen v. Roy was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in their decision in the Employment Division v. Smith case, enabling the "rational basis test" to become more deeply entrenched against the free exercise of religion. The Employment Division v. Smith rule inspired Congress and thirteen states to enact statutes like the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act intending to return the government to the strict scrutiny "compelling interest test" of the decisions prior to Bowen v. Roy. Mr. McArthur formally applied to the TDA Commissioner, Todd Staples, in April 2007, requesting a religious accommodation to obtain a commercial pesticide applicator's license though he is unable to identify himself with a SSN. After an exhaustive exchange of correspondence between McArthur's attorney, the TDA Commissioner's office, and the Attorney General's office, the issue of the religious accommodation was never responded to by the government. Mr. McArthur filed a complaint (pdf) (doc) through his Austin Attorney on April 4, 2008. He believes he will prevail like another license applicant prevailed in Leahy v. District of Columbia when the Courts applied the "compelling interest test" called for in Texas and United States law. Though his livelihood is at stake, McArthur's greatest concern is that all liberties are at risk if the administrative convenience of §666 trumps freedom of religion. American Christian Liberty Society News - Article reproduction in its entirety permitted. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#3. To: All (#0)
I am amazed that only one person responded to this article.
This is the first I've seen it, but it has 87 Views.
That is why I am surprised that folks were not weighing in on it.
There are no replies to Comment # 5. End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||