One of the founding myths of the United States is that religious liberty is enshrined because people fled to the colonies to escape religious persecution and the strong connections between the church and state in Europe. Whatever the truth of the matter, these are two excellent reasons to legally protect religious liberty. After all, persecuting people based on their faith (or lack thereof) seems to be generally wrong. Concentrating secular and theological power has often proven dangerous—although the church and the state can be quite harmful operating on their own (see, for example, Pol Pot or the scandals plaguing various churches). As such, freedom of religion seems generally a good thing—albeit within limits.
It might strike some as odd that religious liberty should be limited, but it is the nature of freedoms that they require limitations to exist. To say that freedom requires limiting freedom might seem paradoxical or Orwellian, but it is neither. Consider, for example, the freedom to own property. As Hobbes argued in his Leviathan, if everyone has the right to everything, then this amounts to a right to nothing. As Hobbes and others have noted, meaningful property rights require limiting property rights. To illustrate, for you to own your phone or house, it follows that my liberty to own or use them must be limited. The same applies to other freedoms and rights. For example, your right to life puts limits on the freedoms of others—they are not free to murder you. The same obviously applies to religious liberty—for you to have freedom of religion, others must be restricted in their ability to compel you to practice a different faith or to forbid you from practicing your faith. As such, to accept religious liberty in a meaningful sense is to accept that it has limits. The practical challenge is sorting out these limits—a matter of grave concern in the areas of religion, law and ethics.
One sensible approach to freedoms is to use that taken by John Stuart Mill. Mill argues that freedom should be set on utilitarian grounds using a principle of harm. The gist of his approach is that if what you are doing does not harm anyone else, then you should be free to act (or think) in that way. If your action harms others, then this provides a reason to limit your freedom. As would be expected, this approach is often applied to religious freedom. To illustrate, it would seem unreasonable to tolerate human sacrifice on the grounds of religious liberty. This can also be seen as an evaluation of which right trumps the other. In the case of human sacrifice, it can be argued that the right to life takes precedence over the right to practice one’s religion. As a practical matter, as Mill noted, people tend to take the view that what they like should be allowed and what they dislike should be forbidden—without any general principle in operation beyond liking and disliking.
Some would argue that religious freedom has been weaponized to be used against homosexuals and women. For example, there are those who argue that discrimination against homosexuals in housing, employment, medical matters and so on is justified by the religious views of those who claim that homosexuality is against their religion. In the case of women, there are those who contend that their religious liberty should allow them to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services to women. There are, of course, those who say that they are just defending true religious freedom—it just so happens that it seems to discriminate against homosexuals or women.
One interesting point is that if religious freedom allows such discrimination against homosexuals, then it would allow discrimination against anyone—provided that the person engaged in discrimination had the right sort of religion. For example, Christianity would seem to warrant discrimination against liars, adulterers, those who worship graven images, witches, those who misuse the name of God, those who do not respect their mother and father, and so on. Consistency would seem to require that if homosexuals can be discriminated against because their behavior is seen as violating sincerely held religious beliefs, then the same would apply to all sinners. That is all of us—for we are all guilty of some sin or another. Probably many. Oddly enough, there seems to be little interest in denying services to adulterers and liars (which is fortunate for a certain president) even though adultery and lying make it into the Ten Commandments and homosexuality is mentioned but once and apparently as being on par with eating shellfish. One might suspect that many proponents of this sort of religious freedom are really looking for a way to justify their discrimination rather than being overly concerned with acting consistently in accord with their professed faith. After all, if one should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals because they are engaged in what one regards as sinful behaviors, then the same should apply to all sins. This, of course, seems absurd since it would warrant discrimination against everyone. So, let he is without sin engage in the first discrimination.
“One of the founding myths of the United States is that religious liberty is enshrined because people fled to the colonies to escape religious persecution and the strong connections between the church and state in Europe.”
Myths? Why do you call this a myth? One branch of my mother’s ancestors were Swiss Menonites (Anabaptists). They were persecuted in Switzerland because they believed that Baptism was a choice that could only be made by an informed adult. As a result of this belief, they were arrested, jailed, denied the right to conduct business, denied the right to intermarry with non-Anabaptists, and even beaten and left to die on the side of the road.
These people ultimately came to Wm.Penn’s colony which was founded on this “myth” of religious freedom, which ultimately became the Penna. Dutch ( “Deutsch”) area of Pennsylvania.
Another branch of my maternal ancestry were persecuted because they were Protestant – actually Presbyterian, in Scotland during the reign of James I; because they didn’t fall in lock-step with the Church of England, they were banished to Ulster, and eventually migrated to the US where they were free to establish their own churches. This is a matter of family, local, and even regional history. Why do you call it “A myth”? Was this ever a target of prejudice or attack based on bias? Of course. Stupidity and ignorance are human traits. But to call the salvation of tens of thousands of persecuted people a “Myth”? I don’t think so.
My father’s grandfather was a Rabbi in Russia in the late 19th century. He was beaten mercilessly by non-Jews, and eventually driven out of town, (I say “out of town”, but that really means nothing. Jews in that time period and in that area were restricted to living in “Shtetls” on the outskirts of town – in a kind of non-citizen “limbo”.
Without going into a lot of detail, my father’s father escaped from the domination of Czar Nicholas II and came to the US to carve out a new life. Those family members whom he left behind were never heard from again – killed in the Russian Pogroms or exterminated in Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzek, and others. Meanwhile, here in the US, my grandfather and others like him were able to build Synagogues and establish Jewish communities wherein racism and antiSemitism most definitey existed, but not with government sanction.
I would like to hear the description you offer to my grandfather, explaining to him that what he experienced in the US that saved his family, that enabled him to worship in a Synagogue without fear of persecution, that enabled him to open a bakery that put three of his seven children through school, was a “myth”.
“For example, there are those who argue that discrimination against homosexuals in housing, employment, medical matters and so on is justified by the religious views of those who claim that homosexuality is against their religion.
Well, under current law, these people are wrong.
“In the case of women, there are those who contend that their religious liberty should allow them to refuse to provide contraception or abortion services to women`.
And I’m with them on this one. Just because the government allows a particular freedom does not in any way obligate the government to facilitate that freedom. For example, the Second Amendment allows me the freedom to own a firearm – does this mean that the government is obligated to provide me with a gun?
I am allowed under current law to purchase and use anti-pregnancy measures. Condoms, birth control pills, “morning after” pills and even first-trimester abortions are, for the most part, permissible, legal, and acceptable under Federal and State laws. Under what analysis does this then become an obligation on the part of the State or Federal government to provide these measures to me?
I am allowed to drive a car. Am i somehow denied this “right’ if the government does not provide me with a car?
i am allowed to own a home. I am allowed to work in the field of my choice, and i’m allowed to carve out a field/career that has never existed before in order to pursue an idea or dream that I have. No one is stopping me from this – but am I being discriminated against if the government does not directly fund my ideas?
For the government to allow certain practices, whatever they might be, is “Freedom”. However for the government to fund these practices, requires the forced participation of unwilling individuals in the form of taxation, which is the antithesis of freedom.
Imagine the hue and cry that would arise from the insistence that taxpayer dollars fund my “right to bear arms” by virtue of a taxpayer funded allowance for me to buy an AR-15.
Leviticus, Chapter 20 verse 13.
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Seems pretty clear where Christians get the idea the Bible is against homosexuality.
Sure, but why not apply the same approach to all the other sins? I don’t see Christians consistently denying goods and services to known adulterers and liars, etc. As I argued, if the principle is that one can refuse goods and services to sinners, then this applies to all of us. Well, not sinless folks.
“I don’t see Christians consistently denying goods and services to known adulterers and liars, etc.”
How do you know they are not? I guess you could pass a law requiring Christians to do business with adulterers and see what happens.
Well, I don’t know if there are not ghosts in my attic, but I have yet to see any evidence of them.
I did run a few Google searches on businesses denying goods and services based on religious objections to adultery and such, but found nothing. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-but absence of evidence against is also not evidence for. I did easily find examples of people who want to deny homosexuals and women goods and services based on their religion but perhaps no one cares to report on discrimination against adulterers and liars.
CT, DH, TJ, a bit long but curious your thoughts on this discussion twixt Peterson and Prager.
https://youtu.be/L47oJxwp6yg
Sorry, WTP. I can’t take another hour of Peterson. I just can’t. “Make it stop! Make it stop!” I have no objection to him. I like him, I’ve watched a decent amount of his stuff, and agree with a lot of what he says, but he’s everywhere, like God. Or bacteria. I was looking for my old tennis shoes the other day when he ducked out of my closet and told me to clean my room,
Apart from my feeling of overexposure, I’m getting the impression that he could use some time to sit back, reflect on his last two crazy years, absorb some of the arguments he has encountered, and look for some more effective responses to the crazies. Monetizing them is all very well, but I’d like to see more conversions.