ISSN 2330-717X

True Religious Freedom Means Freedom For All – OpEd

By

A recent development in Obamacare’s reach raises an important point about religious liberty. The health care law requires hospitals to provide contraceptives to patients. Churches have protested and have won an exemption to this regulation as it concerns their own health services. This is all well and good: Religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to support practices they find morally objectionable. For related reasons, various tax exemptions on religious institutions are also consistent with the principles of a free society.

On the other hand, some will object that these institutions are enjoying special treatment. In the Obamacare regulations, and especially taxes, is it not also something of a tension with the First Amendment for the federal government to recognize some institutions, by virtue of their religious beliefs, as being exempt from certain mandates, while other institutions would not benefit from such exemptions?

Another seemingly very different issue, concerning the drug war, touches on this same theme. About a decade ago, Congress exempted American Indians from federal laws against Peyote, as the drug had been used for centuries in certain tribal rituals, and it appeared to be a threat to their religious liberty to interfere with this peaceful albeit controversial practice. Yet some have pointed out, validly, that it is unfair for the federal government to single out certain religious groups and allow them to commit acts that would be considered illegal if done by anyone else. A similar point could be applied to exceptions to alcohol prohibition made for religious services.

It would seem both alternatives are unfair, from a standpoint of religious freedom—either the state is violating the religious liberty of certain groups that wish to partake in certain activities (or refrain from certain activities) as a matter of conscience, or it is carving loopholes for such groups while denying the rights of others to engage in the same conduct. To take another example, if a conscientious objector is free not to be forced to serve in war on religious grounds—which he should be—why cannot a conscientious objector have secular or other ideological reasons for not going to war?

Meanwhile, David Theroux has pointed out how much of the modern state itself constitutes a theocracy, but of a more secular mold than is seen in some other political cultures. Indeed, is not the bulk of state activity a violation of the freedom of conscience for those who have religious objections to the state’s many practices? If it is a violation of an atheist’s rights to force him to pay taxes to finance a public school that mandates prayer in schools—and it most certainly is—is it not equally a violation of a Christian’s rights to force him to pay taxes to finance a public school that prohibits prayer? I have long thought the answer was obvious: The entire state apparatus, insofar as it forcibly displaces religious life in the name of secular liberty, is itself a standing abomination to the very principles of freedom of religion so loudly vocalized by proponents of a secular but robust state.

True religious liberty is impossible when leviathan involves itself in every intimate avenue of our personal, social, and economic lives. This is because the state itself compels all its subjects to act in ways that may very well violate their consciences and deeply held values. To allow it to do so when religious values would be undermined is a threat to religious freedom. To make exceptions that declare only religion can exempt people from state obligations is also a problem, for then the state is involved in deciding what is and is not a valid religious belief.

The only way to have true religious freedom is to have freedom for all. Individuals and groups, operating according to the restrictions of personal liberty and private property, should be free to engage in any peaceful behavior. All practices would be lawful not on the basis of whether they are motivated by religion but whether they are just. Virgin sacrifices and suicide bombings, whether religiously or secularly motivated, have no place in civil society. But practices that violate no one’s rights—exempting property from taxes, refusing Obamacare’s mandates, using Peyote, refusing to finance public schools that teach alien values, whether religious or secular, and declining to fight in a war—would be permitted for everyone. We may believe some choices to be more moral than others, or more justified than others when there is a religious element, but the only way to truly have religious freedom for all is to have freedom in general for all. Should Obamacare exempt churches from having to provide contraceptives? Of course. And it should also exempt anyone else from being forced to provide them.

Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory is a Research Editor at The Independent Institute. His articles have appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune, East Valley Tribune (AZ), Contra Costa Times, The Star (Chicago, IL), Washington Times, Vacaville Reporter, Palo Verde Times, and other newspapers.

One thought on “True Religious Freedom Means Freedom For All – OpEd

  • Avatar
    January 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    Permalink

    Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, and on and on) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate. Thus, the government can forbid discrimination against specified people and apply that law even to those who say their religion allows or requires them to discriminate. In rare (one hopes) circumstances, such a generally-applicable law could put an individual in an ethical Catch-22 if it requires one to take actions one considers immoral. For just this reason, when such binds can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.

    Here, it may be questioned whether there is real need for such an exemption, since no one is being “forced,” as some commentators rage, to act contrary to their belief. Employers generally are not required by law to offer health-related benefits to their employees, although the practice of providing such benefits is common. IF an employer chooses to offer health benefits, though, federal anti-discrimination laws and health plan enforcement regulations act to protect an employee’s rights under those health plans. So, depending on whether an exemption to the law is allowed, either employers or employees are put to a choice. If religious employers are exempted from current discrimination and health benefit laws so they can offer health benefits omitting some medications and services, employees can choose whether to accept such benefits or seek employment elsewhere. If current discrimination and health benefit laws are enforced, religious employers can choose to offer health plans complying with those laws or not offer any health plans at all. To the extent that employers already have an option under the current laws consistent with their religious views, they have less need for an exemption from those laws.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.