How should Biden-era Americans understand “religious freedom”?

Last updated on: December 23, 2020 at 11:18 am by Richard Ostling

How should Biden-era Americans understand “religious freedom”? 2020-12-23T11:18:44-05:00 Richard Ostling

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

THE QUESTION:

What does American “religious freedom” now mean?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Protection of Americans’ “free exercise” of religion has been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights for 229 years and counting. Till recently, people generally agreed on what this means. The debates involved whether this constitutional right should be exercised or restricted in specific, unusual situations. For example, the Supreme Court has permitted the Santeria faith to conduct ritual slaughter of animals, and exempted Amish teens from mandatory high school attendance laws.

Now this principle is swept up into culture wars that divide the population and the two political parties. In October, the Brookings Institution, a moderately liberal think tank, issued a lengthy white paper titled “A Time to Heal, A Time to Build” with recommendations on religion policy for the U.S. president. It states that the older consensus “began breaking down as new issues emerged, particularly around the struggle for LGBTQ equality.” Brookings consulted 127 experts on church and state for this document, though few were from the so-called “religious right.”

Consider some history: Back in 1993, Democrats were central in passage of the federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Then-Congressman Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish, introduced the bill in the House, where it won 170 co-sponsors and easily passed by voice vote. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy, a Catholic, was the Senate co-sponsor with Republican Orrin Hatch, a Latter-day Saint, and the act was approved 97 – 3. President Bill Clinton, a Protestant, signed it into law.

The act states that government cannot “substantially burden” the “exercise of religion,” even when the burden applies to people generally, unless limiting of the freedom is “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” Those whose freedom is wrongly suppressed have the right to “obtain appropriate relief” in court. (This restored prior U.S. Supreme Court doctrine that the court had shelved in its 1990 Smith ruling.)

That was then. Last year, House Democrats voted unanimously in favor of the “Equality Act” to protect LGBTQ persons from all forms of discrimination, including in cases of “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics” that differ from the “designated sex at birth.” (Text: www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text).

Importantly, the Democrats’ bill would explicitly prohibit any use of the 1993 religious freedom law to challenge the application or enforcement of anti-discrimination policies.

House Republicans voted against the Equality Act by 173 to 8, noting the Bill of Rights problem, and the Republican Senate shelved the measure. Then a group of House Republicans introduced the rival “Fairness for All Act,” which accepts the anti-discrimination principles in the Democrats’ bill but adds language to accommodate conscience claims from religious individuals and agencies that uphold traditional teaching on sexuality. (Text: www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5331/text?r=1&s=1).

The incoming Joe Biden – Kamala Harris administration is vowing to enact the Equality Act in its first 100 days in office as “a top legislative priority.” Passage presumably depends on whether Republicans maintain Senate majority control in January 5 runoffs for two Georgia seats. In all, the Biden-Harris White House posts 20 pages of LGBTQ+ programs and pledges at https://joebiden.com/lgbtq-policy/. Other proposals would, for instance, require religious agencies to allow adoption and foster placement with same-sex couples, open transgender access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, and reshape foreign policy.

The current era’s liberal understanding is neatly articulated by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This group defines what it calls “true” religious freedom as “the right to believe as you see fit, not to impose your beliefs on or discriminate against others.” Government must not “play favorites” or accommodate the religious beliefs of people, companies, colleges or religious agencies if that impinges on the rights of liberals.

Beginning in 2011, that sort of outlook led to the saga of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who care for low-income seniors. The Sisters sought exemption from the Obamacare mandate to provide coverage of birth control and what they regard as abortifacients because that would make them violate church teaching. Mr. Biden, a Catholic, intends to enforce the mandate upon religious groups without exemptions.

Americans United is particularly upset by the choice of Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that hostile toward the “true” liberty. It thinks Barrett will “allow claims of religious freedom to be misused to harm women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities and the non-religious,” and thereby cloak “a conservative political agenda in the disguise of religious freedom.”

Most assume Barrett will be sympathetic toward religious freedom claims from individuals and groups. That was evident November 25 when she joined four other conservative justices to temporarily block enforcement of certain attendance limits on religious gatherings that New York State imposed due to the COVID pandemic, pending later hearings on the substance. When Ginsburg was on the court, she formed a 5-4 majority that went the opposite way on parallel cases.

The advocacy from Democrats and liberals conflicts with the conservative stance typified by Attorney General William Barr’s much-discussed October 11 speech on religious liberty at the University of Notre Dame Law School. (Text: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics).

Barr said the change since the 1993 act demonstrates the way secular forces now employ legislation and court cases as a “weapon” against religious and moral traditionalists. “We have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith,” he said. “Irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith,” compelling them to violate their conscience.

Can such a basic disagreement be bridged? The Brookings report comments that the two competing bills proposed in Congress last year lay out “strikingly different” approaches, but it hopes lawmakers can find “at least some common ground on these issues.” A tall order.

UPDATE: This December 23 Pro Publica article pursues related issues:

https://www.propublica.org/article/religious-freedom-policies-trump-administration

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 20, 2020

What is the world's worst government on religious liberty? (Answer: China)

Next Post

December 17, 2020 Perennial Christmas issue: Should the Bible's Isaiah 7:14 speak of a "virgin" birth?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was Barnabas' original name?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Silas Timothy Mark Joseph