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.
No comments:
Post a Comment