Win Battles But Lose the War
P. Schultz
May 12, 2014
Below is a
link to an article in the NY Times about how a Christian legal group, Alliance
Defending Freedom, has won some cases defending what they see as “religious
freedom,” such as the recent case in which the Supreme Court said that the town
of Greece, N.Y. can begin its public meetings with a public prayer. The article
also points out that this group is hoping for a victory in the Hobby Lobby
case, where it is being argued that forcing companies to provide birth control
as part of its health insurance is a violation of “religious freedom.”
Well, this
is correct: Forcing companies to do such a thing when it violates the religious
principles of the owners is a violation of religious freedom. Hence, the
Supreme Court might well side with the Alliance Defending Freedom. But that is
a long, long way from getting us where the Alliance – and others – would like
us to go, viz., to a nation that puts religion ahead of politics. And in my not
so humble opinion, this nation will never go there because it is, fundamentally
and deeply, committed to a secular view of religion, a view which is embedded
in the very Constitution the Alliance appeals to in order to defend religious
freedom.
What is
labeled “the separation of church and state” is actually “the separation of
religion and politics.” Moreover, this “separation” was created as a way of
subordinating religion to politics or of religion to the secular. Evidence of
this? Well, most simply put: It is the state, the government that decides how
far the freedom of religion extends against the demands of the political, the
secular. So, the government can decide that all will serve in the nation’s
armed forces if that is what it thinks best. There is no constitutional right
of “conscientious objection,” not even for Quakers. Moreover, the government
decides if parents have the right not to treat their children medically when
their lives are at stake. Again, there is no constitutional right to refuse
medical treatment for one’s children. There is even no constitutional right not
to send your children to public school, at least through the grades that
precede high school, as decided in Yoder
v. Wisconsin, where the Court did find that the Amish did not have to send
their children to high school. But note: The case did not involve grade
children nor did it involve young people of high school age who wanted to go to
public high schools. As Justice Douglas reminded the court, it would be a horse
of a different color were a case to arise where some Amish children wanted to
go to public high school and their parents were, on religious grounds,
objecting. It is difficult to conceive of a court decision in favor the
parents’ freedom of religion at the expense of the children’s right to attend a
public high school.
The point
is this: There is a realm of religious freedom that exists under the
Constitution by virtue of the first amendment. But the extent of that realm is
decided by the government exercising its judgment about what the good of secular
society requires. So it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be under
this Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment