Religious Rights

The recent skirmishes over a bill in Arizona that would allow business owners to discriminate by refusing to serve certain people of their own choosing were defended by the claim that "religious rights" were involved. But Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill and that produced even more screaming that religious rights were being violated. "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer makes Christians in her state second class citizens," tweeted one person. It's interesting that in this person's mind it is only Christians who are being deprived of their rights. Is it really only Christians who want this bill so that they can refuse to serve Gay and Lesbian couples? It's interesting how something that is proposed and defended on the basis of broad rights nevertheless comes down to just one thing, hatred of the LGBT world.

What interests me in all of this is the way Christians evidently feel threatened and how the concept of "religious rights" is used. The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of this sentence means that in the eyes of our government Christians have no more clout than any other religious or non-religious group. For to elevate Christians above Muslims, for instance, would be to establish a state authorized religion. The thorny part is the second half of the sentence, providing that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Does this mean that members of any religious group can do anything they wish so long as it is defended as an authorized "practice" of that religion? Hence, should American Muslims be allowed to follow all practices of Sharia Law? Should conservative Mormons be allowed to have numerous wives, many of them under age? Obviously, we are not ready to embrace every "practice" that comes along.

What we need to think through is what it means to "practice or exercise a religion." Catholics are counseled to shun birth control measures and to have as many children as possible. The exercise of Catholicism evidently means ignoring birth control when it comes to one's personal behavior. But does this give Catholics the right to disapprove of non-Catholics who want to behave otherwise? And how far can they go with their disapproval? It seems clear to me that the free exercise of a religion is the freedom to think in certain ways, to join with others of a similar faith, and to regulate one's own behavior in accordance. But everyone must remember that the very same right to religious freedom is held by every other person, which includes the right to be completely non-religious as well. So there must be an "edge" to personal behavior beyond which the practice of one's religious beliefs is no longer appropriate. This is because going beyond that edge begins to imply that all others must practice the same religious beliefs as you do. Interestingly, the First Amendment has a tricky side. If the Constitution in saying that free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited were to mean that any religious group can require others to conform to its standard of behavior, that would actually constitute an infraction of the first part of the amendment, that Congress shall not establish any religion. So clearly the First Amendment does not grant the free exercise of religion in any sense that allows religious groups to require their preferred behaviors of others. 

Now in the Arizona law the issue is whether a Christian business owner can refuse to do business with someone who behaves in a non-Christian way. The question is whether running a business is an authorized part of a Christian practice. Or, in running a business, does a person leave the free exercise of his/her religion behind and, instead, commit to working with people of any belief as guaranteed them by the Constitution. The answer seems obvious to me.