Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
-The United States Constitution
The First Amendment in our nation’s bill of rights protects our most basic freedoms; the freedom of speech and the freedom of press, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government. All of these freedoms are vitally important, but none of them were the first right guaranteed by the Constitution. That honor goes to the freedom of religion.
America has long prided itself on being the “land of the free.” That freedom extends to almost all areas of life, including one of the most integral parts of a person: religion. Americans are, for the most part, free to practice their religion as they see fit without interference from the government.
Our interpretation of the freedom of religion clause has changed dramatically since 1791. In early America, when the vast majority of the country was Protestant, the interpretation of the clause was relatively straightforward; religion was important, and it has a place in everyday life. Over time, the importance of the Protestant religion in the country has decreased.
The reason for the decrease isn’t easy to quantify. The growing influence of science—which was often viewed as incompatible with religion—played a part, as did changing demographics. As America grew, different religions began to gain a foothold in American culture, especially in places with heavy immigration. An increase in the number of non-religious citizens that wanted religion to be a private matter is a factor to consider as well. The acclimation of the Protestant churches to the culture, along with the complacency that comes from being the majority cannot be discounted, either.
Interpretation of the religion clause became much more complicated with the diversification of religious thought. In an attempt to protect everyone, the courts and the government began making the public forum a “religion-free” zone. People are still allowed to believe whatever they wish, but they are increasingly unable to act on their religious beliefs.
In response to this trend, there has been an influx of “religious freedom” bills that are designed to protect citizen’s ability to practice their faith as they see fit. Precipitated by the legalization of gay marriage, many of these bills are designed to protect those who feel that their religion condemns gay marriage. The most recent spate of bills, most notably in Mississippi, are in response to the growing transgender movement.
These bills, in essence, allow businesses to refuse service to people because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” about the person’s sexuality. For example, if I owned an apartment in Mississippi, I could refuse to rent that apartment to a gay or transgender person.
Do these bills actually protect religious freedom, or do they just promote discrimination? These bills protect religious freedom by giving everyone the right to choose who they serve. Religious organizations should be able to choose whom to serve based on their religious principles; they are inherently religious, therefore religion understandably plays a large role in their decisions. Apartment complexes, on the other hand, are not inherently religious and should not be able to discriminate based on religious convictions.
This is the defining difference. We need to make more clear what qualifies as legitimate religious expression and where it applies. Freedom of religion needs protection, but so do minority groups that are often discriminated against under the guise of religious freedom.
