Religious Freedom is Dogmatic Slavery

Posted by WiredSisters on February 2nd, 2017 filed in Abortion, Catholic Worker, Law, Marriage, Moral Philosophy, Quaker Practice, Sexuality

(One More for Orwell)

These days, every time I see the phrase “religious freedom,” I wince.  Once more a good name for an honorable principle has been defiled.  “Religious freedom” used to mean the moral right of an individual or group to follow the principles of its religion.  It’s what the First Amendment guarantee of “free exercise of religion” is supposed to protect.  It is what the conscientious objector clauses in military regulations and the Selective Service Act are supposed to protect. There is even a conscientious objection clause in immigration law, stating that an applicant for US citizenship who has religious objections to the requirement to pledge to bear arms for the US can be exempted from it.  The Amish have similar exemptions, by law or custom, from various license plate requirements for wheeled vehicles, and schooling requirements for children.  Many pacifist groups and individuals have advocated a similar exemption in federal tax laws, permitting them some accommodation under the Internal Revenue Act regarding paying taxes for military purposes.  Most such objectors are willing to pay taxes for non-military purposes, such as Social Security, environmental protection, and national parks, and are asking only for assurance that their individual tax monies will be directed only for such purposes.

Whatever one may think of that argument, it follows logically the pattern for conscientious objection exemptions from military service—that it, it affects only the person or group requesting the exemption.

Now, a whole new class of “religious liberty” exemptions have been created, having to do with same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception. What they have in common is that they do not merely create rights of the objectors to practice the customs of their own faith, but a right for them to abrogate the rights of third parties, such as persons applying for same-sex marriage licenses and health insurance beneficiaries seeking reproduction-related health care.

These new “religious freedoms” are accepted by many conservative religious groups, apparently because those groups think the people whose rights they are restricting have no religious principles of their own, and their mere secular preferences are trumped by the religious rights of conservative Christians.  But in fact, many mainline religious denominations consider responsible use of contraception not merely a secular option, but a religious mandate.  Similarly, many such denominations recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, and the obligation of such couples to enter into matrimony “solemnly, soberly, and in the fear of God” (Book of Common Prayer marriage service) rather than just shacking up.  These are not cases of religious rights versus secular options, but of competing religious rights.  It is well-settled First Amendment law that the government may not favor one religion over another.  The only right religious individuals and groups have against the general public is to be left alone by them—not to deny them their own right to be left alone.

And more recently, many of the “get tough” rules having to do with feeding homeless people (or pigeons, for that matter), or providing food, shelter, and other necessities to undocumented aliens, actually forbid practices many religious groups and individuals consider basic to their faith.  We no longer execute people for refusing to burn incense to Caesar.  But we are perfectly willing to jail people for practices which faithful Catholics consider works of mercy and practicing Jews consider mitzvoth.  That’s real  religious freedom, and it is in more danger than ever these days.

CynThesis