Free To Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty In America (Part 1/3)

Luke Goodrich works for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. He's won multiple Supreme Court victories for religious freedom. He has appeared on Fox, CNN, ABC, NPR, and been in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine. He's also an adjunct professor at the University of Utah law school where he teaches constitutional law.  In other words he's qualified to speak on this issue.

I suspect he will also surprise - and challenge - both liberals and conservatives on this issue. While it's written broadly for people of faith and specifically for Christians, I think it also offers great food for thought for those who are not religious.

Don't assume I automatically agree with everything - I have some questions that remain (and perhaps even some points of dissent) that will emerge over the course of this three part series. Meanwhile, I would love to see a thoughtful conversation emerge from this book (and these posts).

I am going to blog a review/overview of his book in three installments that will match the three sections of his book:

1) What Is Religious Freedom
2) What Are The Most Serious Threats?
3) What Can Be Done?

What I blog will be a mix of direct quotes and paraphrases from his writing. I will try to note where I am stepping out of the book and offering my own commentary.

Reaping The Whirlwind

I was raised to believe that we reap what we sow. This does not mean that our history is our destiny in the sense that we can never rise above or move past things we have done in the past; it was simply an observation about how life unfolds. The Old Testament prophet Hosea raised the stakes even higher: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Hosea 8:7). In context, it seems to say that those who sow foolishness will reap disaster. What comes back to haunt us may be unfair in that the penalty will be disproportionate to the wrongdoing, but, once again, that’s how life unfolds. 

One of the things that strikes me in the Kavanaugh hearings is how we are seeing the principle unfold before our eyes. 

Let Them Bake Cake (Part 1/4): Pastries, Supreme Courts, And Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 this week in favor of Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Bakeshop in Colorado, who declined to craft a customized wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. It was a "narrow" ruling that really sets no precedent, as it focuses on the process rather than the position. Mark Goldfeder gives a good summary for CNN:

"The Colorado Civil Rights Commission removed all nuance from the case: It literally and openly compared Phillips to those who would use religion to justify slavery or the Holocaust. In the words of one commissioner, "it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to -- to use their religion to hurt others."As Justice Kennedy explained: 

"To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical --something insubstantial and even insincere....This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's antidiscrimination law -- a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation...[t]he government, if it is to respect the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." 

And so, for this reason, among others, the court found on fairly narrow grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's First Amendment free exercise rights. The government officials were required to give his claim religiously neutral consideration, and instead of being tolerant and respectful even while they may have disagreed with his position, they were overtly hostile to, and even questioning of, his sincere religious faith.

In addition, "the state law at the time afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline creating specific messages they considered offensive, and the Colorado commission had previously allowed three different bakers to refuse to put an anti-gay message on a cake."

What it left unresolved was "whether business owners have a free speech right to refuse to sell goods and services to same-sex couples." This doesn't address "'bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, calligraphers' and other businesses, 'where the government says, look, we don't much care about your religiosity. We just think you have to provide these services for same-sex weddings.'"

Etcetera #2: Travel Bans, Immigrants, And Refugees

The President's recent 'travel ban' and the Supreme Court's partial affirmation of it have been front and center in the news lately. In this week's podcast episode of Etcetera: More Than Talking Points, we take a look at several aspects relevant to this discussion.

• The details of the 'travel ban'
• The ruling of the Supreme Court
• The Trump Administration's use of the Immigration and Nationality Act to define "bona fide relationships" as it applies to family members
• The threat to national and personal security (or lack thereof) posed by refugees and immigrants

You can link the the podcast on Soundcloud here; you are also welcome to join a post-podcast discussion on our Facebook page. Meanwhile, here is a list of related articles that you may find helpful.