SINCE HOBBY LOBBY won its landmark case in 2014, the religious freedom narrative has been dominated by traditionalist, politically conservative Christians. But for most of our nation’s history, religious freedom was a bipartisan value that echoed a commitment to inclusive pluralism.
In 1993 and 2000, religious freedom laws were passed almost unanimously in Congress, with support from social progressives as well as conservatives. Religious freedom was viewed as a basic constitutional right that should be applied indiscriminately.
The 2016 election only exacerbated the perception of religious freedom as a conservative Christian value. President Trump vocally supported Jack Phillips, the baker of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case who refused to bake for a gay couple’s wedding because of his religious beliefs. Trump took steps to dismantle the Johnson Amendment, which protects nonprofits from partisan political manipulation and, with the signing of the first of his two executive orders on religious freedom, announced, “We are giving our churches their voices back.”
In some cases, conservatives are claiming their right to religious freedom in entirely appropriate ways. Yet, in too many cases, far-right Christians have used religious freedom as a loophole for discrimination or to evade civil rights laws. And secular progressives have allowed them to do it, ceding religious liberty to extremists and jeopardizing this core tenet of democracy.
But that narrative could be changing.
Diverse and surprising religious freedom cases are popping up around the country and may signal a rebalancing. In February 2017, for instance, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop the Dakota Access pipeline from endangering Lake Oahe, whose waters are used in Native religious ceremonies.
Seven Catholic peacemakers face federal charges of trespass, conspiracy, and depredation of property for unauthorized entry onto a Georgia naval base in April to “symbolically dismantle” nuclear warheads on the Trident-class submarines at Kings Bay, with possible sentences of up to 25 years. The defendants argue that Catholic teaching demands dismantling nuclear weapons and that, as a matter of religious freedom, the government must offer the least restrictive means of resolving the charges against them.
In January 2018, Border Patrol agents witnessed Scott Warren, a member of No More Deaths humanitarian aid group, providing shelter, beds, clothes, food, and water to two migrants on the outskirts of a small Arizona town, about 40 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. The agents arrested Warren and brought federal charges against him for harboring migrants illegally and for conspiring to do so. He pled not guilty and offered religious freedom as his defense.
The Catholic diocese of Brownsville, Texas, is fighting to prevent the federal government from seizing church land at La Lomita Chapel to build the border wall. “Such a structure would limit the freedom of the church to exercise her mission in the Rio Grande Valley,” said Bishop Daniel Flores.
House Democrats recently voiced support for the first Muslim women to ever be elected to Congress by proposing an alteration to the historic rule against members wearing hats during sessions. The proposed change would “ensure religious expression” by “clarify[ing] in the rules that religious headwear is permitted to be worn in the House Chamber.”
No matter where one falls along the religious or political spectrum, religious freedom remains an essential component of a functioning democracy. By supporting a justice-minded vision of religious freedom, we can ensure that religious beliefs and civil rights are protected for all.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!
