Religious Freedom and Restoration Act

       

     Many of my United Methodist clergy colleagues have considered this law bigotry, comparing it to denial of service to black Americans in the south before the passage of Civil Rights legislation. Given that many of my colleagues among Indiana UM clergy have taken to harsh rhetoric on this matter, I would like to share a few things that are designed to bring some reasonableness and objectivity to the law as passed in Indiana. I suppose I would like the rhetoric to tone down. I think of Romans 12:9-21, a few isolated comments: Love one another with brotherly affection ... Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty ... If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all."

            The point in the links that follow is to offer information in the hopes that everyone can discuss matters before the public and religious communities in a reasonable way. 

            The federal act involved is relatively brief and easy to read and understand in US Code 42 paragraph 2000bb. It says nothing about sexuality.

            I invite you to read the article in Wikipedia. Another simple history is in the Indianapolis Star. The surprising thing here is that Representative Chuck Shummer introduced the bill in the House and President Clinton signed it in 1993. It became the law of the land. It still applies to the Federal Government. However, the Supreme Court decided that Congress did not have jurisdiction to apply it to the states. Hence, the move to have states apply its principles within the states. Religious Liberty Archive has posted the states who have past their version of the law so that it does apply to the states.

            The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has been a strong supporter. It has held symposiums, and one is relatively recent. If you have the time, its video discussion is still available. The Roman Catholic Church has been a strong supporter, as have Orthodox Jews.

            Briefly, the point of the law is that no other law in the state is to place undue burden upon individuals that inhibit the practice of their religious faith. Many uses of the legislation over the years have protected Muslims and Native Americans. It has protected the Amish and Sikhs. It has recently protected Hobby Lobby from supplying insurance for abortion. Constitution Daily has a brief article regarding some of this as well. Here is an interesting and brief article on ten Americans helped by various renditions of RFRA. Here is an example from the state of Washington regarding a flower shop owner. Here is an imagined interview by Ross Douthat that seeks to explain that America should be large enough tolerate people with differing values.

            Of course, recently, the focus has been upon the effect of the legislation in Indiana on same-gender unions. The concern is that religious persons, right now mostly Christian, but it would include Islamic businesses as well, might discriminate in this area. I have been asked if this law reinstitutes the segregation laws of before the 1960s. The answer is no. In fact, to ask the question is to fail understand Jim Crow laws, so I have found this article to explain it. Briefly, Jim Crow forced business owners to discriminate against African Americans, and many private business owners resisted this action of government. This law gives religious people standing in court to make decisions based upon their beliefs and values. Howard Slugh has written an article that explains why states need RFRAs. Daniel Conkle, an Indiana University professor, wrote a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star expressing his reasons as to why Indiana needs an RFRA. A lawyer from South Bend has offered his analysis as well on his blog. Here is a quick summary of what the Law is and is not.

           My conclusion is that the law is nowhere near the type of thing designed by segregation laws in the south in the pre-1960s ear of the USA. In fact, the law builds in restrictions that would not allow that. I commend political leaders as they recognize the danger that government can be to the free exercise of religion. My secondary conclusion is that the hateful rhetoric by many who oppose the act is misplaced and dangerous. I say misplaced because the presenting issue, sexuality, has not arisen in other states nor with the Federal Government. I say dangerous because, contrary to the intent of those who use such language, the rhetoric I have seen could lead to violence against Governor Pence and to those who voted for the legislation, which include members from both political parties. This sentence was in my original post. What I did not anticipate was the threat of violence against the owner of a little pizza place in southern Indiana. The Wall Street Journal has an editorial in which it refers to the new intolerance. My wonderment is if any of my clergy colleagues will see that their rhetoric is reaching its natural extension to this threat of violence.

           In any case, I find it disturbing that so many can be so hateful against their opponents, whom they accuse of being so hateful. People have turned against their state government quickly, and this reaction has the potential of hurting the state. A rational response would have been to give it a year and see if the fears of opponents become reality. Frankly, if such fears became reality, I would be in favor of its repeal. I also find it puzzling that suddenly in Indiana there is supposed to be this pent-up desire to discriminate against people, especially by conservative Christians against gays. My own view is that most Christians live with difference all the time. We love our family, co-workers, and neighbors, regardless of their what they believe or do. I have the concern that spreading such fear within the gay community through this heated rhetoric will hurt more than help. The rhetoric that spreads fear among certain groups, I suspect, has a political motive to discredit Governor Pence but, broadly, conservatives and Republicans. Those with a political agenda are agitating a situation for political benefit. It seems to me that pastors and churches need to do the hard work of bringing people together rather than driving a wedge. Is that going too far? In other words, the reason for the original federal law and the reason for its application in the states is due to a fear as well, the fear of the state placing an undue burden upon people who are following their religious convictions. This fear has its basis in actual case law, including a decision by the Supreme Court. I guess the question I have, especially for my colleagues, is whether we ought not to be on the side of bringing people together rather than contributing to division.

         Personally, I value individual liberty, and that includes respecting private property rights and freedom of association, as well as the free exercise of religious beliefs. I think America is large and diverse enough to allow for this. If someone does not want my business for whatever reason, I can go down the street and find someone who will. I suppose I have confidence that moral and economic considerations will eventually get to a good place if we allow people the freedom to work this out.

        I close with a few reminders from Paul.

I Corinthians 13:4-7

4  Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant   5  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;   6  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.   7  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.   8  Love never ends.

Philippians 4:8  Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

I Thessalonians 5:13b, Be at peace among yourselves.

Ephesians 4: 29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.