blue bits. red rocks.

religious freedom

It’s not discrimination when we are prevented from doing the discriminating. It’s not persecution when we are prevented from doing the persecuting. It’s not bullying when we’re told that we can’t bully others. So Listen– It’s Not Religious Discrimination Just Because You Can’t Discriminate.

As far as we can tell, Hobby Lobby is “Christian” because it’s closed on Sundays…and now they don’t have to pay for birth control. And that’s it. It’s not their purchasing practices. It’s not their corporate structure. Hobby Lobby does not define itself as “Christian” because of some broad international humanitarian work that everyone knows about. Like a certain fast-food chain, we are witness to a national corporation representing our faith in the thinnest of terms. The Supreme Court, “Religious Freedom,” and Why No One Should Be Celebrating

Is there really no difference between an individual with an eternal destiny, a church with a Great Commission mandate, and a for-profit business? What does that say about our theological (and legal) understanding of persons and the church? Do for-profit corporations have religious liberties?

The fact that Hobby Lobby’s owners — and many others — sincerely believe that morning-after pills are abortifacients based on a different definition of what constitutes a pregnancy and thus an abortion, and perhaps a different reading of what they think the science says, raises fascinating and disturbing questions about the interaction and sometimes the clash between sincerely held religious beliefs and scientific claims. Must the government grant the authority of every sincerely held religious belief? How would it distinguish between credible/rational and incredible/irrational religious beliefs? And are scientific claims always and only scientific claims? Do for-profit corporations have religious liberties?

You can bet its not just Mozilla. Now that the bullies have Eich’s head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer. They will pressure them to refuse employment to those who decline to conform their views to the new orthodoxy. And you can also bet that it won’t end with same-sex marriage. Next, it will be support for the pro-life cause that will be treated as moral turpitude in the same way that support for marriage is treated. Do you believe in protecting unborn babies from being slain in the womb? Why, then: “You are a misogynist. You are a hater of women. You are a bigot. We can’t have a person like you working for our company.” And there will be other political and moral issues, too, that will be treated as litmus tests for eligibility for employment. The defenestration of Eich by people at Mozilla for dissenting from the new orthodoxy on marriage is just the beginning. Robbie George

That’s true as far as the very generic language of “religious liberty” used by promoters of these bills. But as soon as they get more specific about what they mean by “religious liberty,” the sheep costume falls to the side. This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. The fangs and claws are obvious for all to see. This effort doesn’t appeal to piety or to a love of religious liberty — it appeals to the same instinct that hanged Mary Dyer on the Boston Common. A wolf in wolf’s clothing: Reviving the ‘religious liberty’ to hang Quakers in Boston Common

A GNT creation ©2007–2014