More questions about religious freedom

Sometimes political positions are just political positions

I’ve noted on here before that I am fascinated by religious freedom questions. How do we balance broad general interests against the particular interests of a group trying to maintain their “closely held religious beliefs”? And is it possible that sometimes religious claims are simply matters of political preference backed up by specific scripture texts?

A combination of factors brought these questions to mind this week. First, I completed a draft of my review of Late Modernity in Crisis for Englewood Review of Books.¹ The book is a translation of two german sociologists, Andreas Reckwith and Harmut Rosa, trying to articulate a theory of society that can analyze our current moment. After summarizing the work of one of the authors,² I wrote this:

Rosa’s analysis of acceleration (a subject of one of his earlier books) is a helpful critique of those caught in nostalgia. Going back to some imagined quieter period isn’t possible. The challenge, then, becomes figuring out to create the stability in the moment that allows those of differing perspectives to coexist. In my own writing, I find it helpful to imagine how this works around issues of religious freedom. The challenge arises in how we attempt to protect freedoms of those from a variety of religious perspectives – Christian and non-Christian alike – as well as those who aren’t religious at all. While we certainly lack resonance in this example in our current moment, Rosa’s theoretical analysis gives me hope (emphasis added).

Yesterday, Bonnie Kristian had an interesting piece in Christianity Today describing how Representative Ilhan Omar came to the religious defense of a state Republican activist, Lizzie Marbach, who had posted a religious sentiment on former-Twitter.³ After the woman was called a bigot by others on the site for her statement that Jesus was the only hope. Omar wrote that “stating the core beliefs of your faith isn’t bigoted.”

Omar’s focus is helpful and is what I want to try to unpack. There is a difference between the core beliefs of faith and current social issues one disagrees with, even if that disagreement is couched in religious terms.

The specific incident that triggered me to write about this involved the case of the Southwest Airlines flight attendant, Carlene Clark, who was fired from her position. The story has bounced around in the courts for the last six years. Back in 2017, the head of the Southwest flight attendant union attended a pro-choice march in Washington. Clark wrote threatening messages on Facebook directed to the union official. She was subsequently fired for violations of policies against social media harassment. Clark sued, claiming that she was fired for her religious beliefs.

Clark won her case and a jury awarded her $5.1 million in damages, later reduced to $800,000. One outcome of the suit was that Southwest was ordered to reinstate Clark and to make an announcement to their employees that the airline “may not discriminate on the basis of religious practices and beliefs”. The airline posted that they “did not discriminate on the basis of religious practices of beliefs.” The judge (Ken Starr’s nephew) responded to this change by ordering three Southwest attorneys to go through “religious liberty training” put on by the Alliance Defending Freedom⁴. Yesterday Judge Starr delayed implementation of his order.

Clark’s argument is that, as a Christian, she is opposed to abortion. But I wonder, what exactly makes this a religious view as opposed to a policy disagreement. I’m not suggesting that she doesn’t have a right to her position. But it seems very different from the defense that Ilhan Omar provided.

There are other examples I could explore in the same vein. Baylor University recently received a religious exemption from the Office of Civil Rights for the Department of Education. The Colorado Diocese is suing the state over the new policy providing early childhood education across the state because they don’t want to be required to admit children of gay couples.⁵

Randall Balmer, whose work is always worth reading, explored the question of religious freedom in a blog post yesterday. After reflecting on recent SCOTUS religious freedom decisions, he writes:

For people of faith, these decisions are no cause for celebration. What Jonny Williams, who is listed as CT’s national political correspondent, apparently fails to recognize is that the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment is the best friend religion has ever had. It set up a free marketplace for religion where religious groups compete on an equal footing, thereby lending a vitality to religion in America unmatched anywhere in the world.

Once that line of separation fades, it’s the integrity of the faith that suffers. Consider the words of Roger Williams, founder of the Baptist tradition in America. He wanted to separate the “garden of the church” from the “wilderness of the world” by means of a “wall of separation.”

It’s important to remember that Williams and his contemporaries were not members of the Sierra Club. Wilderness for them was a place of darkness, where evil lurked. 

So, when he wanted to separate the garden of the church from the wilderness of the world, he wanted to protect the integrity of the faith from too close an association with the state. That’s the genius behind the First Amendment.

I cannot help but wonder how much stronger the faith in America would be if we didn’t turn political policy disputes into religious freedom arguments. Maybe then we could protect religious freedom for all and not just for our team.

1. I’ll publish the full review on here next week.

2. They each wrote sections of the book.

3. I was able to read the whole thing yesterday even though my CT subscription has ended.

4. The ADF is also in the news because they are representing the doctors (who do not provide abortion care) in the mefipristone case in Texas.

5. I’d explore those in this post but we have tickets to see Barbie and I don’t have time!