I have always been just a little been uncomfortable with the way some on the right talk about religious freedom.Of course, the First Amendment guarantees that \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,\" and that's as it should be. The state has no role in either mandating or prohibiting religious beliefs. <\/p>\n
But as so often happens, the waters of what exactly constitutes a \"right\" have been muddied, and I worry that few people understand the true implications of religious freedom. <\/p>\n
Religious freedom means that the state cannot penalize you because of your beliefs. But it does not mean that people of faith should be rewarded with special privileges unavailable to the skeptical or the non-believers. It also does not mean that those in the private sector should be forced to accommodate every custom. <\/p>\n
For example, it has been argued that religious freedom requires employers to actively facilitate worship by such means as providing Muslims with the the ability to bathe their feet, or excusing Jewish workers from labor on holy days distinct from national holidays. Is it respectful and decent of employers to make such accommodations? It certainly is, but that's a completely different issue from the claim that, because someone is motivated by a particular faith, they are entitled to special treatment. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
That is the difference between a positive and a negative right. A negative right is one that the government can't stop you from exercising, a positive right requires aid or assistance from others. <\/p>\n
The danger here, I worry, is that the right might be going down a road typically trodden exclusively by the left: the creation of special interest groups with unique sets of rights. For years, we have been hearing about the need for workers' rights, women's rights, transgender rights, etc., etc. <\/p>\n
But there are no such things as special rights for women or for workers. They are all human beings, and we all share the same rights. There should be no special, government-granted privilege for being a worker, just as there should be no such privilege for being religious. The whole point is that we all have equal rights. <\/p>\n
Once we concede that anything must be accommodated in the name of religious freedom, we will be forced to define what constitutes a \"valid\" religious belief, a question that by its very nature undermines the point of religious freedom. We would have to decide which religions are legitimate and which are not, an unenviable task if ever there was one. <\/p>\n
By simply respecting the freedom and privacy of all Americans, we need not draw such unpleasant distinctions. <\/p>\n
Last year, Rowan County (Ky.) Clerk Kim Davis made national headlines for refusing to issue licenses for gay marriage following the Supreme Court ruling legalizing such unions. Some opponents of gay marriage held her up as a champion of their beliefs, and argued that forcing her to act against her conscience was a violation of her religious freedom. <\/p>\n
I don't begrudge anyone who wants to celebrate Davis for taking a stand, if you happen to agree with her, but no one was forcing her to do anything. She voluntarily accepted a job whose duties include issuing marriage licenses. If she is unwilling to perform that duty, for any reason, then her employer has no obligation to continue paying her. <\/p>\n
Paying someone for a job they refuse to do is not an affirmation of religious liberty; it's just bad business. <\/p>\n
Society is divided enough as it is. Let's not worsen the problem by creating a legal distinction between the religious and the non-religious. Everyone is free to worship in his or her own way, and that's an extremely important element in the American experiment. <\/p>\n
Just remember that your faith doesn't create an obligation for others. <\/p>\n
LoganAlbright is the director of research for Free the People, an organization that promotes personal freedom and economic liberty. <\/p>\n
The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original here:<\/p>\n
Defend religious freedom, but don't create special interest groups - The Hill (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I have always been just a little been uncomfortable with the way some on the right talk about religious freedom.Of course, the First Amendment guarantees that \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,\" and that's as it should be. The state has no role in either mandating or prohibiting religious beliefs. But as so often happens, the waters of what exactly constitutes a \"right\" have been muddied, and I worry that few people understand the true implications of religious freedom. Continue reading