True Religious Freedom Means Freedom for All
By Anthony Gregory • Friday January 20, 2012 3:06 PM PDT • 9 Comments
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.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Culture, Liberty, Morality, Natural Law, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, Property Rights, Regulation, Religion, Socialism 
Anthony, The confusion and hypocrisy of government policy regarding religion is indeed a major problem as the secular nation state and its compulsory edicts and legal violence are indeed indistinguishable from a theocracy and are on a gigantic scale. Nationalism is a major western religion of our era.
In this regard, I recommend the following article by William Cavanaugh, the author of the pioneering book, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict:
“Does Religion Cause Violence: Behind the common question lies a morass of unclear thinking”
And here is a video presentation by him at Butler University:
“Religious Violence: Myth or Global Reality?”
David Theroux | Jan 20, 2012 | Reply
Great post, Anthony!
Note: While churches (i.e., places of worship) have won an exemption, church-affiliated institutions (e.g., schools and hospitals) have “won” only a reprieve. Their health care plans must begin providing no-cost contraceptive benefits (including birth control pills, implants, and sterilization procedures) to members by August 1, or when their plan starts the new year. For most plans, this will be January 1, 2013.
Porklus | Jan 21, 2012 | Reply
Are not some religions evil, as is evident in their history? If so, what, if any, restrictions should be imposed on them?
richard | Jan 21, 2012 | Reply
Richard:
I strongly urge you to read the article that David links to above,“Does Religion Cause Violence: Behind the common question lies a morass of unclear thinking.”
In it, Dr. Cavanaugh posits the thought-provoking premise:
Thus, going after certain “religions” as inherently “evil” is by definition arbitrary and incoherent, and we must, by necessity, stick with law that defines and sanctions evil acts impartially: e.g., murder, rape, theft, and fraud is evil regardless of who commits it or in the name of what “religion” or “greater” good.
That is, we must abandon the false ideology that “Then end justifies the means:” every means is itself an end and must only be judged on its own. No means can be justified by the argument that it is for some “greater good” for which a particular individual or right can be sacrificed.
Mary Theroux | Jan 21, 2012 | Reply
Anthony Gregory, 1/21/2012
“Religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to support practices they find morally objectionable”.The churches protested and won this exemption from the State.Here the State is the supreme power and authority.The “powerful” religious institution protested instead of simply stating this decree is not negotiable.Two powerful opposing institutions must compromise on almost everything if they are to coexist and maintain power over their subjects.This is a “balance of power” where the plebs will obey both the church and the State under the pretence of being free.
Thanking you for this opportunity to comment -
James M. de Laurier
James de Laurier | Jan 21, 2012 | Reply
Anthony, great post! I see no difference between religion and education. The fact that government sticks its filthy hand into education is a form of mind control and enslavement that violates the separation of state and matters of conscience. Here’s an excerpt from my favorite book, Actual Ethics, that discusses this point:
Scott G | Jan 22, 2012 | Reply
I refer individuals interested in the legal philosophy underlying this issue to Kent Greenawalt’s masterful 2-volume work titled “Religion and the Constitution.”
Jim Montanye | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply
Thoughtful and clear, well said. Today with the rise of National Socialism (our black swan!) it is interesting to see how National Socialism of the 30′s – how they used “religion” and took over the German church which oaths to the state were greater than that to Christ. In fact Eucharist was centered on the state not Jesus. We are in the same days as the French revolution, The Weimar Republic, and the Russian overthrow of 1917. Today we have the fruit of the last 100 years of Progressive Democrats and our current Occupy Now Soros movement/Unions/Government Triune godhead that is now leading us into it!
IF all is met with silence again by the church we can expect the same result – death, loss of freedom, violence in and by the state on different mosaic groups that don’t fit their vision. We see this with Islamist Brotherhood, SOTU, Occupy Now and from the Federal Gov against anything Christian. If we don’t speak out clearly (as you are!) and act as we must...we are faced with two choices – one that is right and the other which is painfully easy.
Stephen J. Higgins | Jan 28, 2012 | Reply