The precarious nature of religious freedom

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act became the law of our land in 1993, when signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law had been passed unanimously by the U.S. House of Representatives and affirmed by the U.S. Senate with only three dissenting votes. Nearly all of the watchdog agencies in the U.S. were supportive.

However, most everyone admitted that the effectiveness of the law would be determined when challenges to the law began hitting the U.S. Supreme Court. The most difficult case yet to reach the nation’s highest court carries the title Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. On a 5-4 split vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, a giant retail chain, won the right under RFRA to exclude contraceptives from the health care benefit for their employees that are required under the new federal Affordable Care Act.

Religious freedom has been of extreme importance to Americans from the very beginning of the nation. The founding fathers of the new nation wanted no part of religion that was state-sponsored, endorsed or controlled by government.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government from taking any action to establish religion. Further, the First Amendment prohibits government from any act that thwarts the free exercise of religion. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 reinforces the religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment.

Because of the high level of religious freedom in America, religion has flourished. The variety of religions in America is mind-boggling. It is the task of our laws and courts to make sure that no religion is treated with favor and that none are impeded in their religious practice.

What happens when the interests of a particular religion run head on into the legitimate responsibilities of government to serve all the people of the nation? RFRA says that the government must have “compelling” reasons to interfere with the particulars of any religion.

David Green and his family are devoutly religious. David Green and his family members own 100 percent of the stock of Hobby Lobby. To make an issue of their particular faith is not pertinent to Buswell vs. Hobby Lobby.

None of the hundreds of Hobby Lobby stores are open on Sundays. Hobby Lobby is an excellent employer. No employee is paid less than $15 per hour. Employees are covered by health insurance.

The Greens’ corporation gives away more than half of its net earnings. They give little or nothing to political parties and candidates. Their charity is quietly practiced.

After reading about David Green, I have nothing but admiration for what he does and the life that he lives. I respect his religious convictions.

David Green is devotedly pro-life. He believes that for a woman to use contraceptives is the equivalent of abortion. It is a part of his religious belief system.

In the United States, David Green holds a minority conviction. A majority of Americans are pro-choice and have no moral qualms about the use of contraceptives.

But the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not about majorities. These cornerstones of religious freedom are about the rights of minorities, even individuals.

I read the Supreme Court majority opinion on the Hobby Lobby case that was written by Judge Alito and the minority opinion of Judge Ginsburg. It is obvious to me that the debate was vigorous and that the two disagreeing judges argued not out of personal prejudice, but out of a great commitment to the exercise of law.

I also read the reactions of supporters of both sides of the argument about the Hobby Lobby case. Some believe the 5-4 decision is a disaster and an affront to the rights of women. Others believe the decision is a milestone victory for religious freedom.

Certainly, as in every court decision, there are winners and losers. Our country is committed to an adversarial court system. There will always be winners and losers in every case that is decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I choose to take a different perspective. Over future years there will be more cases that will come before the High Court that involve the First Amendment and RFRA. The meaning of “compelling” will be argued many times.

The face of rulings will change in response to the movement of history and the make-up of the Supreme Court. Religious freedom will remain important to Americans and religion will continue to flourish in America.

Do I have a personal opinion about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case? Yes, I disagree with the decision based on the Court’s granting of religious status to a for-profit corporation.

Corporations are not ordinary citizens. Corporations are not a legal entity by birth or naturalization. For-profit corporations do not have a religion and do not worship. They make profits for stockholders. I have not as yet heard a compelling reason for corporations to be given human or religious status.

Of course, I am a lay person with no training in law. That may or may not have meaning. I have learned that in a courtroom that one-half of all attorneys are wrong.

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.

Opinions expressed on the Faith page are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, its staff or its parent company, Wick Communications Co. To submit a column or other news for the Faith page, send email to news@frontiersman.com, or call 352-2250.