Are we willing to forego decency and legal equality in pursuit of free, unhindered exercise of religion?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Why we need to take religion out of politics
By David Steury, February 27, 2014

When one thinks of politics at its worst, one probably thinks of endless debt ceiling negotiations or perhaps Underwoodian scheming and deception (“House of Cards” fans will know what I mean).  Politics at its worst is dishonest or dogmatic. It oppresses and excludes, or strives for personal gain on the backs of the less powerful populace. So I was skeptical when Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy, which supports a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBTQIA individuals, called the tactics of her opponents “politics at its absolute worst,” in a statement on the Center for Arizona Policy’s website on Feburary 22. Apparently, the individuals and business groups who opposed the measure engaged in politics at its worst when they asserted that this form of legalized segregation was anything other than  nice wholesome religious folks exercising the right to practice their religion.

In brief, the Arizona bill would have expanded the definitions of “exercise of religion” and “person” to include corporations and other businesses as people and then allowed these people to act or not act as they see fit to exercise a sincerely held religious belief. The bill was written in support of businesses across the nation who have turned away gay customers because of their sexual orientations. Similar bills have popped up across the nation, though Arizona’s made it the furthest. Luckily, amid pressure from business groups across the state and nation, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the legislation on Wednesday night.

Politics is at its worst when legislation that is clearly intended to marginalize a minority group makes it to a governor’s desk. It is at its worst when a dominant group tramples the rights of others, using their own rights as justification. 

Many on the religious right have been calling for a discussion of religious liberty in the United States. We should have that conversation. We should ask ourselves how far we are willing to let religion penetrate into our supposedly secular nation, and whether we are willing to forego decency and legal equality in pursuit of free, unhindered exercise of religion.

Constitutionally and practically speaking, free exercise of religion is guaranteed unless restricting it is the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest. Legal equality is a compelling issue, and allowing religious beliefs to be used as a legal justification for discrimination conflicts with that interest. Asserting an inviolable right to practice religion in the public sphere, and the right to use religion as a justification for one’s actions or inactions towards others, interferes with the rights of all.

The religious freedom problem extends beyond LGBTQIA individuals being denied service. Some laws protect religious people who violate Do-Not-Resuscitate orders because of their religious mandate to preserve all life. This infringes on people’s property rights to their own bodies. Perhaps more insidiously, religious freedom has been used as a justification for parents refusing desperately needed medical care for their children, at times resulting in a child’s death. Even here at Bowdoin, the religious freedom argument has been used to attack the the College’s removal of Rob and Sim Gregory as formal advisors to the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship when the Gregorys’ refused to sign a non-discrimination agreement  that stated that students could not be excluded from any campus groups.

As usual, legal instruments like this can be challenged with a simple thought experiment. All of the rhetoric surrounding Arizona’s bill, of course, has concerned Christian business owners excluding gay customers. The same legal justification the bill offers could be used by Muslims to exclude Christians—something I’m sure the bill’s supporters would not favor. Guaranteeing “freedom of religion” to the extent that it infringes on other peoples’ rights is not just destructive to a few—it would create the potential for a compartmentalized society.

Instead, the ideal for a heterogeneous, diverse society lies in a strictly secular public square where religion is personal and does not dictate public life. The will of God has created an ‘other’ and excluded it throughout history, and in a pluralistic society like ours, such divisive concepts cannot be given a full place at the table. People  are free to believe what they choose, but for an egalitarian society predicated on rule of law, they cannot be allowed to act on those beliefs.

Politics is at its best when we include and protect rights for all rather than promote narrow interests.
...................................................................................................................................................................