The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. It is also forbidden to enact laws that would impede the free exercise of ones faith tradition. As with most things in the nations guiding decree, the simplicity of the words can belie the complexity of the meaning, especially when citizens periodically ask: What does that mean? <\/p>\n
How far should religious freedom go? Can it be allowed to encroach into the murky waters ofdiscrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or any other form of intolerance? <\/p>\n
What about claims of conscience? Should a religiously affiliated institution be mandated to provide coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans if it violates their conscience? <\/p>\n
Here I would be inclined to side with the religious liberty argument, assuming the institution is indeed religiously affiliated. But just saying one is religiously affiliated does not suffice. <\/p>\n
Acme House of Doughnuts is not a religiously affiliated institution because its proprietor, Wile E. Coyote, self-identifies as Christian. Such institutions are not the equivalent of, say, Catholic Charities. <\/p>\n
It has been reported that President Donald Trump is considering an executive order to bar the federal government from punishing people or institutions that support marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. <\/p>\n
On the surface, it appears the presidents actions would potentially place the First Amendments religious freedom clause in tension with the 14thAmendments equal protection clause a constitutional conundrum. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has similar legislation in Congress called the First Amendment Defense Act. <\/p>\n
Regardless of how ones feels about Lees bill, its hard not to love the name. Who would be against protecting the First Amendment? But that is not what the legislation, or the presidents executive order, would accomplish. It would instead extend powers to the First Amendment at the expense of the 14thAmendment. <\/p>\n
From Sept. 17, 1787, when the Constitution was created, to August 1920, when the 19thAmendment guaranteeing women the right to vote was ratified, the ethos of America stood in tension with itself. <\/p>\n
A nation conceived on the propositions of liberty and equality for all in theory had truncated that definition to white male landowners in practice. It used the initial draft of the Constitution to legitimize the institution of slavery and deprived the franchise to vote for roughly half the population. <\/p>\n
The First Amendment Defense Act, along with the presidents executive order, seeks to resurrect dark chapters from the nations past. <\/p>\n
When has it worked out for America when it passed legislation based on othering a group of people? When has the freedom of some been dependent on the subjugation of others? <\/p>\n
Since constitutionally protected same-gender marriage hurts no one, the only way to make a plausible argument for the First Amendment Defense Act is to transform the victimizer into the victim. <\/p>\n
The freedom of religion within the confines of ones chosen community does not grant immunity when one engages in the public square. Freedom to worship does not mean that my constitutional rights are violated if Im not allowed to exercise those beliefs wherever I go, especially if those doctrines infringe on the liberty of others. <\/p>\n
That seems to be the nebulous line that should never be crossed. The First Amendment protects believers and nonbelievers alike. It acts as a safeguard so that no group possesses supremacy. Once the line of supremacy has been crossed so that one group enjoys additional space, the premise of the Constitution has been violated. <\/p>\n
The tragic irony is that the misuse of the freedom of religion clause, in this case, is used to justify discrimination. On this basis alone, it is a profoundly un-American exercise. <\/p>\n
But those in support of the First Amendment Defense Act have most likely placed more emphasis on individualistic biblical interpretation than constitutional understanding, which renders them unable or unwilling to see the humanity of those who are the objects of discrimination. <\/p>\n
This so-called religious freedom is nothing more than an escape hatch to circumvent the Constitution, to act unencumbered on ones opposition to same-gender marriage. <\/p>\n
This First Amendment Defense Act is not designed to address religious freedom but to justify the prejudices of Wile E. Coyote. It would allow him to mask his bigotry under the thin veneer of religious freedom with the assistance of the Congress and the president. <\/p>\n
Byron Williams is a contributing columnist. Contact him at 510-208-6417 or byron@byronspeaks.com<\/a>. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read the original post: The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. It is also forbidden to enact laws that would impede the free exercise of ones faith tradition. Continue reading
\nWilliams: Defense of First Amendment Act is discriminatory - East Bay Times<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"