Religious Freedom.
Clear Deception:
"Protecting the free-exercise (of religion) rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them." - United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, "Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby" 2014
Issue:
What are so-called "Religious Freedom" laws and why do they even exist? The recent controversies in Indiana, Arkansas and other states have given rise to much uninformed debate about their potential for discrimination - and understandably so, given the way these laws have been corrupted.
Deception:
Many of those backing these laws claim they don't allow for discrimination. This is outright deception, because they do, as will be shown here.
History:
In 1993, Congress passed legislation sponsored by two Democratic senators that called for protection of Native American religious practices. At the time, the government was empowered to regulate the religious practices of tribes on tribal lands. Recognizing that this itself was sometimes an act of discrimination by the government against native peoples whose traditions are not always represented or understood by the government that stole their land, Congress passed legislation to ensure that religious beliefs are allowed certain exemptions from law.
The legislation, as passed, was applicable on both the federal and state level.
In 1997 the legislation was struck down as it applied to state governments, as it was determined to be an improper exercise of Congressional power regarding states' rights. It continues in force for the federal government, however, as Congress has the power to carve out exemptions from laws it has authorized. In response, a number of states passed their own versions, referred to as “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” ("RFRA"), in an effort to allow religious beliefs to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
These so-called "Religious Freedom" laws prohibit the government from exercising undue restraint in making or enforcing laws that can be construed as imposing an “undue burden” on the free exercise of religion. What is an “undue burden”? It must meet two tests to be granted exception from law:
1. The burnden must be necessary for a compelling government interest, such as national security, and
2. The exception must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
In other words, does the government have a compelling interest in prohibiting a religion from using hallucinogenic drugs in its ceremonies, such as peyote? No, because prohibiting its use in that context cannot be construed as a compelling government interest. Even if it was, banning its use in religious ceremonies would not be the least restrictive way to address the issue.
Both the federal and state RFRA laws apply only to government edicts. They do not grant private individuals, businesses or organizations – including churches – exemption from the law except if an exemption meets the above tests.
These new state law hewed to the letter of the federal law, which kept in place protections against discrimination by government, business, organizations and private parties based on a variety of factors such as race, gender etc. by private parties. Protecting a business from being required to serve gays and lesbians, for example, is not considered a compelling government interest.
The Supreme Court eventually sanctioned this type of discrimination, however, ruling in the infamous Hobby Lobby ruling of 2014 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby) that businesses have a right to discriminate against people based on the religious beliefs of the business owners. In that case, the court said that the private religious beliefs of the company's owners could be used to justify denial of health care coverage for certain medical modalities – specifically contraception.
This is where the problem of religious exploitation of a law initially designed to protect Native American religious practices morphed into a problem of religious institutions using the law to discriminate against everyday people in everyday life. This is where Indiana, Arkansas and several other states have attempted to revise this law, running social justice off the rails by changing the law to remove protections against discrimination.
Reality:
We live in a civil society based on the rule of law. It is not based on religion, despite the wild and inaccurate claims made by people who want to believe that this nation is based on Christianity just because they perceive that the majority population was of the Christian faith at the time of its founding. Whether that postulate is true or not, there is nothing in the U.S Constitution, the U.S. Bill of Rights or U.S. judicial case law that in any way embodies or codifies religious values as defining or controlling our government.
The Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of religion", but not in contravention of law. It only guarantees that government will not interfere in the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. You can form any church you want, but you still cannot use its existence to justify violations of law, whether those be laws against murder or slavery or discrimination against African-Americans or Jews or Catholics or the Irish or the LGBT community. Or you couldn’t, not until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
Resolution:
As with the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision, which opened the door to unbridled corruption of our political system by allowing unlimited and secret campaign financing by corporations and special interest groups, Congress or the Supreme Court must act to reverse the "Hobby Lobby" decision to restore the separation of church and state as mandated by the First Amendment. The first step is to remove from law the protections we afford corporations under the false claim of their "personhood" (see "IRS Targeting" essay). This will require pressure from the public.
We the people must ensure that neither government nor business is granted the right to infringe on our personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. We must not allow businesses and institutions to run roughshod over the fundamental human rights that we strive to promote as a free and democratic society, ones which embody the values of equality and self-determination in our eternal quest for justice. We are a secular society that embraces and is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of gods.
What are so-called "Religious Freedom" laws and why do they even exist? The recent controversies in Indiana, Arkansas and other states have given rise to much uninformed debate about their potential for discrimination - and understandably so, given the way these laws have been corrupted.
Deception:
Many of those backing these laws claim they don't allow for discrimination. This is outright deception, because they do, as will be shown here.
History:
In 1993, Congress passed legislation sponsored by two Democratic senators that called for protection of Native American religious practices. At the time, the government was empowered to regulate the religious practices of tribes on tribal lands. Recognizing that this itself was sometimes an act of discrimination by the government against native peoples whose traditions are not always represented or understood by the government that stole their land, Congress passed legislation to ensure that religious beliefs are allowed certain exemptions from law.
The legislation, as passed, was applicable on both the federal and state level.
In 1997 the legislation was struck down as it applied to state governments, as it was determined to be an improper exercise of Congressional power regarding states' rights. It continues in force for the federal government, however, as Congress has the power to carve out exemptions from laws it has authorized. In response, a number of states passed their own versions, referred to as “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” ("RFRA"), in an effort to allow religious beliefs to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
These so-called "Religious Freedom" laws prohibit the government from exercising undue restraint in making or enforcing laws that can be construed as imposing an “undue burden” on the free exercise of religion. What is an “undue burden”? It must meet two tests to be granted exception from law:
1. The burnden must be necessary for a compelling government interest, such as national security, and
2. The exception must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
In other words, does the government have a compelling interest in prohibiting a religion from using hallucinogenic drugs in its ceremonies, such as peyote? No, because prohibiting its use in that context cannot be construed as a compelling government interest. Even if it was, banning its use in religious ceremonies would not be the least restrictive way to address the issue.
Both the federal and state RFRA laws apply only to government edicts. They do not grant private individuals, businesses or organizations – including churches – exemption from the law except if an exemption meets the above tests.
These new state law hewed to the letter of the federal law, which kept in place protections against discrimination by government, business, organizations and private parties based on a variety of factors such as race, gender etc. by private parties. Protecting a business from being required to serve gays and lesbians, for example, is not considered a compelling government interest.
The Supreme Court eventually sanctioned this type of discrimination, however, ruling in the infamous Hobby Lobby ruling of 2014 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby) that businesses have a right to discriminate against people based on the religious beliefs of the business owners. In that case, the court said that the private religious beliefs of the company's owners could be used to justify denial of health care coverage for certain medical modalities – specifically contraception.
This is where the problem of religious exploitation of a law initially designed to protect Native American religious practices morphed into a problem of religious institutions using the law to discriminate against everyday people in everyday life. This is where Indiana, Arkansas and several other states have attempted to revise this law, running social justice off the rails by changing the law to remove protections against discrimination.
Reality:
We live in a civil society based on the rule of law. It is not based on religion, despite the wild and inaccurate claims made by people who want to believe that this nation is based on Christianity just because they perceive that the majority population was of the Christian faith at the time of its founding. Whether that postulate is true or not, there is nothing in the U.S Constitution, the U.S. Bill of Rights or U.S. judicial case law that in any way embodies or codifies religious values as defining or controlling our government.
The Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of religion", but not in contravention of law. It only guarantees that government will not interfere in the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. You can form any church you want, but you still cannot use its existence to justify violations of law, whether those be laws against murder or slavery or discrimination against African-Americans or Jews or Catholics or the Irish or the LGBT community. Or you couldn’t, not until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
Resolution:
As with the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision, which opened the door to unbridled corruption of our political system by allowing unlimited and secret campaign financing by corporations and special interest groups, Congress or the Supreme Court must act to reverse the "Hobby Lobby" decision to restore the separation of church and state as mandated by the First Amendment. The first step is to remove from law the protections we afford corporations under the false claim of their "personhood" (see "IRS Targeting" essay). This will require pressure from the public.
We the people must ensure that neither government nor business is granted the right to infringe on our personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. We must not allow businesses and institutions to run roughshod over the fundamental human rights that we strive to promote as a free and democratic society, ones which embody the values of equality and self-determination in our eternal quest for justice. We are a secular society that embraces and is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of gods.