Freedom of religion is important.
It’s so important that America’s Founders decided to include it in the same First Amendment as the right to write this editorial column and the right to have protest marches (“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”).
But, just like freedom of speech, freedom of religion has a few limitations that we need to consider.
Freedom of religion is important.
It’s so important that America’s Founders decided to include it in the same First Amendment as the right to write this editorial column and the right to have protest marches (“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”).
But, just like freedom of speech, freedom of religion has a few limitations that we need to consider.
Here’s the problem. One person’s rights shouldn’t be used to step on another person’s rights. With freedom of speech, the problem is often physical — if you allow two radio stations on the same frequency, neither one will be able to be heard properly. Both are theoretically “exercising their rights,” but if one is drowning out the other, that’s clearly not what the First Amendment intends.
With freedom of religion, it gets a little trickier, but the principle remains the same. Freedom of religion does not mean one religion has the right to drown out others. All voices must be allowed to be heard.
In a sense, freedom of religion is all about preventing discrimination. If one religion is dominant in the proverbial public square, then that is unfair to others, and nobody wants to be the one discriminated against.
If you’re the one discriminating against others, you may not see the problem. Religion, by its very nature, tends to be not very accommodating of other viewpoints. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” says Yahweh/ Jehovah in the Bible. “There is no god but Allah,” say Muslims. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all agree that there is one god, but they disagree on God’s name and on what he (or she?) teaches.
“It’s OK to worship other gods, multiple gods or no god at all” is not a concept found in very many religions. And yet, this concept is central to the idea of religious freedom. In Biblical terms, the First Amendment asks us to “Do Unto Others …”
The trouble with all of the so-called “religious freedom” laws is that they turn the idea of religious freedom upside down.
Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. If I walk into your store, it should not matter if I am an atheist, Catholic, conservative, gay, Japanese, Jewish, liberal, Muslim or Satanist, as long as I have money and am not disruptive. Businesses are allowed not to serve people who are causing a disturbance, as millions of “we reserve the right…” signs will attest. But beyond that, the customer’s right to be served should override the business owner’s right not to serve.
Unfortunately, when a strong, pro-business “religious freedom” law is enacted in a state with weak anti-discrimination protections, the result is not pretty. We saw what happened in Indiana — businesses suddenly had an excuse to discriminate against customers in ways that would make the old Southern segregationists stand up and cheer. Indiana backed down, but there will be other fights.
And, just to debunk an oft-repeated talking point, Jewish restaurants have always had the right to not serve ham — all they have to do is not put it on the menu. They are not discriminating against ham-eaters, it is simply a service they do not offer to anybody, equally.
In fact, without the “right to discriminate against customers” part, pretty much all religious freedom laws are redundant. Freedom of religion would remain intact, and in better shape, without them.
James Fujita is a former GVN news editor. He works as a copy editor for the Visalia Times-Delta in California’s Central Valley. Fujita can be contacted at jim61773@yahoo.com
