Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion 

by Ted Miller

(originally published March 2017 in Tumbleweird)

When I was a kid I often heard phrases like “It’s a free country and I can do whatever I want.”  While it is true that our country was founded on principles of liberty and freedom, those freedoms must be balanced for the good of all.  The exercise of your constitutionally guaranteed freedom shouldn’t infringe on my equally protected freedom.  As supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is quoted as saying, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

And this is particularly important with the exercise of religion.  Freedom of religion is so important that the first amendment begins with these words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This means that The United States specifically has no state religion.  Contrary to what some would have us believe, we are not a Christian nation nor are our laws based on any specific religion. Certainly, Christianity has strongly influenced American culture, and even though a strong majority of Americans identify as Christian, that doesn’t make us a Christian nation.

Ethics and morality are the concepts and principles that help define right and wrong in human behavior. We follow those principles to help make us better human beings. Laws tend to be written to ensure ethical behavior. Religious teachings often include a moral code of behavior. But, just as laws are not always moral, religion is not always ethical. We confuse morality, religion and ethics because they are such an integral part of our culture.  But ethical behavior does not require a religious belief, and when unethical behavior is done in the name of religion, our laws must protect those impacted by that behavior. 

Using religion to infringe on the rights of other citizens is not only unethical, it is illegal. The government has asserted the right to limit religious practices that violate individual liberties and freedoms. Although it hasn’t always been the case, if a particular religion professed that owning slaves was ordained by their god, the law in the United States would prohibit the exercise of that religious practice. Polygamy is practiced in a number of religions, but is not legal in the United States. The supreme court upheld the prohibition of polygamy in Reynolds v. United States (1879), stating that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

The constitution is also clear that religion can’t be used as a test for employment or government office. There was a time when it was feared Catholics would be more loyal to the pope than to the constitution and were therefore unfit for government office. Today, Muslims are often discriminated against because their religion is misunderstood and has been denigrated in our current political discourse. Atheists are often discriminated against for their lack of religion and it is considered political suicide to acknowledge atheism as an elected official, yet an atheist’s lack of belief cannot be used against them to deny equal treatment under the law.

The distinction between the freedom to practice one’s religion and equal protection under the law sometimes comes into conflict. The recent case against Arlene’s Flowers has been a test case in balancing individual religious freedoms with the law that prevents discrimination based on a protected class. Owner Barronelle Stutzman claimed that her religious beliefs prevented her from providing flowers for a same-sex wedding because her religion believed such a marriage was sinful. But Arlene’s Flowers is a business open to the general public and as such must treat all customers equally.  Ms. Stutzman, in her public business practice, can no more refuse service to a gay couple than she could to a mixed-race couple, a Muslim couple, or even an atheist couple. Once you open a business in the State of Washington, you agree to follow the laws of the state, including those that bar discrimination.  The so-called “right to refuse service to anyone” doesn’t apply when you are using your religion as a basis to deny that service.

If Ms. Stutzman were a minister in a church that believed same-sex marriage was against the rules of her religion, the state could not compel her to perform a same-sex wedding in her church. But that is a religious distinction, not a legal one. The Mormon church isn’t compelled to allow anyone to marry in the temple who doesn’t meet the requirements of their faith for a temple wedding. That is freedom to practice their faith and doesn’t infringe on the rights of non-Mormons.

There are some who feel that limiting the ability to impose their religious beliefs on others limits their religious freedom. They believe so strongly in the righteousness of their religion that they are unable to distinguish between the law that protects those who don’t follow their religion and their own sense of moral superiority. They claim that they are the ones being discriminated against, but their perspective is skewed by their privilege and their majority position in our culture. And they want to turn back the progress that has been made towards equality and inclusiveness under the law.

There have been a number of bills introduced into state legislatures recently, including Washington State, that would allow business owners more latitude in refusing service based on “deeply held religious beliefs.” But such laws that allow discrimination against marginalized people are wrong and likely unconstitutional. Where would we draw the line to decide which “deeply held religious beliefs” can be used to discriminate? A law that allows one person or group to negatively impact another on the basis of their religion, to treat them unfairly as anything less than equal under the law, is immoral and unethical.