Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties

The news has been abuzz the past few weeks with debate over what entails "religious freedom." The spark for this discussion has been Indiana's passing of a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) bill, but was also fueled by Arkansas' governor signing a similar bill into law. These laws would allow their states to protect the preferences and liberties of religious individuals and entities. In short, they say the government cannot force a person or group to contradict its religious beliefs.

However, the focus on these bills (as with other similar efforts) has been on the expansion of these religious rights to companies and businesses. The go-to example seems to be Christian bakers. Under these laws, if a baker who happens to be a Christian is asked by a gay couple to cater their wedding, the baker would have the right to refuse service if he felt catering the wedding would violate his conviction that homosexuality is wrong.
This has sparked outrage on the part of gay-rights groups who insist the law invites and legalizes discrimination. Proponents of the law claim that the focus is not on the gay community and that it will not be used to discriminate. Instead, they say, the law is intended to protect from big government.

Now, I am not an attorney or legal expert, so I cannot weigh in very much on the legality or implications of these laws. However, I have observed one issue in the back-and-forth that must be brought to the surface.

As I've listened to both sides, I can agree that each has some valid points. However, neither side is likely going to see eye to eye for one simple reason--they hold competing values. In particular, conservatives are prioritizing "religious liberty" while their opponents are prizing "civil liberties."

Of course, we in America like to believe that our laws and justice system can bring us peace, prosperity, and unity (which honestly looks a lot like idolatry at times to me). We also want to believe that our Constitution can solve any social problem we encounter. As such, we want to believe that religious liberty and civil liberties (both great American values) can coexist in harmony. But ultimately, this is not the case.  When push comes to shove, you most often will have to choose either religious liberty or civil liberty, or you will have to redefine what one of those values looks like.

Recently, Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential hopeful, came to the defense of RFRA laws by trying to point out the "two-way street" that exists. He asked why it would be wrong to allow a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple based on religious beliefs but not be wrong for a pro-gay print shop to refuse service to Westboro Baptist, who famously promote the slogan "God hates fags."

However, these kinds of remarks illustrate the tunnel vision that creeps into such public debates. Comments like Santorum's completely ignore the other side's point that the LGBTQ community is entitled to civil rights, and therefore any such discrimination is wrong. I can just imagine a gay-rights activist responding to Santorum's illustration by saying, "It's wrong for the Christian to discriminate, AND ok for the print shop to refuse service because discrimination against gays is wrong in both scenarios."

This conflict between religious liberty and civil rights (and our different priorities) means that we are really just talking past each other. We will never find common ground or see eye-to-eye as long as we are operating by different paradigms. For instance, our definitions of "civil rights" conflict. For some conservative Christians, civil rights includes race, ethnicity, and gender, but should not include "sinful" behaviors like alternate sexual orientations or gender identities. Meanwhile, others feel sexual orientation should be a protected category. As long as we cannot agree on these terms, there will be no resolution to the public debate. Beyond this simple fact, we also place different values on religious and civil liberties, and this is important because religious and civil liberties inevitably stand in tension with each other.

The bottom line is that if we value religious freedom as the highest priority, then we are going to admit that all kinds of religiously motivated beliefs are acceptable. But how far do we take this? Is it ok for white supremacist groups who use the Bible as justification for their actions to hate or even harm blacks and Jews? Is it ok for certain cults to employ suicide or human sacrifice? Most of us would say that these actions cannot be prohibited in a civil society, but this is what you will get if you prize religious freedom without adding any qualifications or redefinitions.

And most often, the way we place a check on unbridled religious freedom (or any other freedom, like freedom of speech) is to fall back on civil liberties. It's ok to utilize your freedoms unless it infringes upon the freedom or well-being of others around you. This is the very argument being used with RFRA laws. It's fine to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the moment that belief drives you to treat others differently or to discriminate, that is a problem.

And the truth is that, by-and-large, sexual orientation is considered a civil liberty now. We have a variety of laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community in certain contexts. More and more cities are passing non-discrimination ordinances (my college hangout town of Springfield, MO is set to vote on one such ordinance today). And, as I said in an earlier post, regardless of your beliefs regarding homosexuality, you need to come to terms with the fact that society has accepted it as a legitimate lifestyle (more than half of Americans support legalized gay marriage). So, if defenders of religious liberty want to protect the civil liberties of other races and genders, they are going to have to start protecting the rights of the gay community as well.

But, at the same time, we would do well to hear conservative concerns that valuing civil liberties as the highest value can pose problems as well. For instance, should a pastor be forced to offer his church building for a lesbian couple's wedding ceremony even if it violates his conscience or his church's teaching? What if civil rights keep expanding and begin to offer protections for more and more specific groups? This increases the likelihood that there will be conflict between civil and religious liberties. So, it's not good enough to simply place civil liberties on a pedestal either.

One thing I hope Christians see from this conversation is the futility of placing our hope in government or laws. Yes we need good government and just laws, but these things cannot save us. They will always be imperfect. So maybe it's time we stop putting so much emphasis on these American values, and instead turn our attention to the values of God's Kingdom, the place where our allegiance is supposed to be anyways.

In God's Kingdom, we value rights, but we don't die for them. Instead, we die for the well-being of others, even for our enemies. In God's Kingdom, we are called to practice radical love, grace, and hospitality. In God's Kingdom, we confess that all are made in the image of God, but also that all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is only as we begin to set our eyes on our heaven-on-earthly calling that we will be able to navigate the tricky areas between religious liberty and civil rights. Looking to laws and our Constitution won't bring opponents together, heal the pain in someone who has experienced discrimination, or bring about a society that respects faith. Quoting the Constitution or appealing to the "weight of history" won't change the lens your opponent is using that prevents meaningful dialogue. Only the Way of Jesus can do this. So perhaps it's about time that we start looking at the words and life of Jesus as the starting point of how to decide whether or not to bake that wedding cake.

------------------------------
Other random observations as additional food for thought and discussion:

• It's helpful to note that the current RFRA bills tend to extend religious protections to businesses. For Christians, we need to really think about whether this accurately reflects reality. A business may have Christians in it, but does that make the company "Christian"? This might be easier to believe with small businesses and those who are self-employed, but what about bigger corporations like Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby? Certainly not every employee of these companies is a Christian. While we may want to say the company has a right to religious protections, who is protecting the religious beliefs of individual employees? If Chic-fil-a were to decide it can't cater to gay-rights events or at gay weddings, are non-Christian employees obligated to carry out the same practices, even if it goes against their religious conscience?
• We Christians do a poor job of thinking about the precedents we set. One of the interesting developments in the news has been that the governor of Indiana ended up signing a clause to prevent the RFRA law from interfering with non-discrimination laws, while Arkansas has specifically avoided creating any exemptions for non-discrimination laws. In fact, Arkansas even passed a bill that prevents cities from enacting any non-discrimination ordinances not already in state law (by the way, there are no non-discrimination laws in Arkansas protecting gays or lesbians). However, at the end of the day, the motivation for pushing back against such ordinances is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin (there really is no commercial or legal reason). However, with these and other efforts, are we setting a double standard? Are we saying it's ok to discriminate on the basis of the sin of homosexuality, but not on the sins of lust, greed, adultery, or lying? Do Christian bakers ever feel compelled to refuse to cater weddings that celebrate excess, drunkenness, and wealth? Probably not (they probably get excited about selling twice as much). Once again I wonder if are trying to legislate morality, but are ending up looking like hypocritical fools.

The Coming Moral Test

The next few days and weeks will be a test for Americans, and particularly for those Americans who claim to follow Jesus. On Tuesday morning, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a 525 page summary of a much longer report on the abuses and interrogations of prisoners by the CIA. In short, the report illuminates the horrendous interrogation methods employed by the CIA. Furthermore, the report claims that the CIA misrepresented its actions and failed to glean any useful information from torturing its prisoners. You can read the executive summary here.

Even before the report was released there has been intense debate over the tactics and the release of the report. Three key areas of debate include whether releasing the report will endanger American lives overseas, whether or not the "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be considered "torture" and violated human rights treaties, and whether or not the "techniques" yielded any useful or accurate information in the war on terror.

The main "techniques" used in "enhanced interrogation" were water-boarding (near drownings), keeping prisoners naked and wet in cold cells for hours at a time, sleep deprivation (up to 180 hours), forcing prisoners to stand for hours on end, shaking prisoners violently, "wallings" (throwing them into a wall), and various slaps. The report also outlines how prisoners were threatened with a power drill,  sexually threatened with a broomstick, had their families threatened, forced to sit in ice baths, or forced to experience "rectal rehydration." Some results of these actions, according to the report, included convulsions, hallucinations, vomiting, and even death.

What grieves me as a Christian is how we as a nation seem so reluctant to admit that these types of actions are wrong. In all of the debate and discussion today, there was really no question that these events and interrogations took place. That much is certain. Rather, the debate heard on the airwaves and internet was over whether or not these actions were "legal" and whether or not they produced useful information that saved lives. For those of us who are Christians, this should deeply worry us, particularly if we claim to have any moral authority at all.

At the point where there is no longer a question over whether these interrogations took place or not, we should not even be asking whether they produced useful information in fighting terrorism. That is an irrelevant point. The ends cannot justify the means. To try and minimize the evil of what took place by saying that we gleaned information that saved lives is to walk down an immoral path blinded by pragmatism. Once we open that box, we invite in all kinds of other evils. As the people of God, we must firmly stand behind the Biblical (and, in this case, Constitutional) affirmation that all human life is valuable and carries at least a glimmer of the image of God. Therefore, all such cruelty done to others, even to our enemies in the name of "national security" is unethical and immoral.

Some might say that this is a necessary compromise in times of war (like killing innocent civilians in drone strikes), but to admit it is "compromise" or a "necessary evil" is still to admit that the action is evil and falls short of the vision for the Kingdom of God.

And so I hope that in the coming days Christians in America will rise up, denounce the torture, and say "never again!" But honestly, I'm not holding my breath. I'm not expecting that response because I also know that most American Christians are also blinded by American culture. I know that many American Christians obey the narratives and values of the empire of the USA rather than the Good News and ethics of the Kingdom of God ,to which they should be swearing their primary allegiance.

And since this is true, most American Christians will continue to value American lives as more important than the lives of others around the world. We will resist releasing all the details of the report because it might endanger "American lives." We will find nonsensical ways to justify the abuse and torture because destroying the lives of those prisoners doesn't really matter as long as we can maybe save some American lives. We will not only reject the claim of the Founding Fathers that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," but we will also reject our Scriptures and our Savior which declare that God created humanity in His image and call us to "love our enemy."

Are we really so morally blind and bankrupt as to dance around the truth of what actually happened?

Yes, a moral test is coming, but I fear the American church will fail. Kyrie Eleison.