In my Constitutional Law class there seemed to be a lot of concerns that enforcing the part of the Constitution that stops Congress from impeding our “free exercise of religion” (1st Amendment) will lead to all sorts of crazy acts and religious excuses. “Next thing you know everybody is saying their religion requires them to kill people!” etc. The people that have that concern are my target audience for this blog, though unfortunately they are probably not reading this. (So even if you don’t have that concern, please keep reading, you’re all I’ve got!)
The Court already has some precedent in this matter that has worked well enough. It will let the government infringe on religious liberty if the government has a compelling reason to do so. This is in line with thoughts on religious freedom during the time that Americans chose to put religious protections into the Constitution. (For example, the author of the 1st Amendment, James Madison, said religious acts shouldn’t be “subjected to any penalties or disabilities, unless under color of religion the preservation of equal liberty, and the existence of the State be manifestly endangered.”) It may seem like the Court can’t predictably determine what compelling government interests are, as opposed to other government interests, but the Court does that in other areas of law and it may be the best way to balance religious freedom with regular democratic practices.
What I am more interested in discussing than the Court’s ability to prevent extremist religious action is the infrequency with which those actions will even occur. I think part of the reason that the Founding Generation wanted to protect religious freedom was that religion usually leads to good things. They did not pass a Constitutional Principle stating that “Congress shall make no law stopping people from doing what they want” or “Congress shall make no law which collides with policies of large non-profit organizations.” Instead, they chose to give extra protection to groups that are dedicated to good causes and are sometimes persecuted for it. These groups do not only feel accountable to government, but to God in some form. I believe it is still true today that religion generally urges people to do good, and so there should not be concern about lawlessness happening because we protect religious freedom.
I will list a few prominent examples of religion being influential in the political sphere in ways that most liberals and conservatives would approve of. Some of Abraham Lincoln’s most famous speeches were actually prayers in which he was addressing himself to God. The most prominent and best organized German opposition to the Nazis came from churches. Martin Luther King Jr. used religious themes extensively in his most inspiring speeches. Today, religious groups are amongst the most active in providing relief following natural disasters and in helping refugees.
A few less prominent examples of religious influence are in the areas of forgiving, teaching children to be loving, and overcoming addiction through reliance on God. And this is not to mention the purely spiritual benefits.
Of course, there are examples of people doing awful things in the name of religion. I don’t claim to understand what has gone wrong in every case. But it is interesting to note that a lot of the terrible things that are done (like the crusades or inquisition) are done by a mixture of state and religious power, where there is an utter failure to respect religious freedom. This should strengthen our desire to maintain strong religious freedom for each individual, even when that individual wants to do something against some only medium-important public policy.
In a case the Supreme Court will hear in December, it will determine whether the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop can refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The State of Colorado says he is violating an anti-discrimination law. The Supreme Court can allow him to refuse by saying that the Colorado law violates his Free Expression (a right that is related to the First Amendment’s reference to speech), or it can say that the law violates his Free Exercise of Religion. I think the reason that a lot of people care about this case, and the reason that is relevant to what was intended by those who ratified the First Amendment, is that he is being pressured to do something that violates his conscience. I hope the Supreme Court sees this as a violation of his Free Exercise of Religion.
My main point is that we should be happy to hear that somebody is doing something that his or her conscience dictates, even if we or the government do not agree. This will usually lead to good. Though very religious people are far from perfect, I don't know anybody who feels religiously obligated by their conscience to harm homosexuals or any other person. Allowing all people to follow their conscience will allow people to do what they believe is right, which is usually in line with what society wants.
