In the main, this proposed amendment to the North Dakota constitution was an attempt to restrict the legislature from getting involved in entanglements in matters of religious liberty without a compelling state interest. Although the proposed legislation predates the controversy, there is an obvious overlap between this legislation and the national discussion on contraception. Indeed, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, vocal supporters of the proposed legislation, pointed out that this measure would have prevented the state from requiring institutions to provide contraception coverage.
North Dakota voters defeated the proposed amendment. At first blush, this appears to be a blow to the ideas of religious liberty. However, a closer look at the facts reveals that the real reason the measure was defeated have to do with its broad language and poor wording. In its proposed form, opponents argued, the legislation could have paved the way for state-sanctioned genital mutilation, honor killings, and related horrors committed in the name of religious liberty.
Matters of law and matters of religious liberty are, unfortunately, going to intersect in today's world, just as they have for centuries. As a liberty-minded Christian, I'd like to explore my thoughts about the nature of this relationship.
First, something needs to be said regarding the national discussion about government requiring institutions to provide contraception care. Let me be fully clear about this: I think that the Catholic Church's position on contraception and birth control is ridiculous. It defies common sense; it unjustly burdens Catholic women and Catholic families; and it can be argued that it has lead to increases in AIDS (due to the Church applying pressure to African governments to stop providing condoms and condom education). Nevertheless, whether I agree with it or not, it is the Catholic Church's position. Therefore, I reject the notion that an institution should be forced, by the government, to pay for something that they don't believe in. This is a clear violation of the principles liberty, and while I sympathize with the plight of those victimized by the Church's position, I cannot abide any attempt by law to interfere with a religious matter if it does not affect the liberties of another person. This distinction will be important in the following paragraphs.
However, far too often expressions of religious liberty lead to victimization of innocent people. An extreme example of this is female circumcision. While some would seek to justify the practice by calling it an expression of religious liberty, the reality is that it's a hideous act of aggression against a human being. Any law that would prevent the practice would, of course, have my support (although such a law isn't necessary in the U.S., as our existing assault & battery laws would come into play).
When matters of religious liberty intersect with the lives of children, we walk a very fine line. For example, I could declare that I support the right of any parent to raise their children in a way that suits them. But I would be lying- I don't support the right of parents to mercilessly beat their children, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). I don't support the right of parents to marry off their adolescent daughters to old men for lives of sexual slavery, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). But do I support the right of a parent to deny life-saving medical care to a child because of their religion? Do I support the right of a parent to deny their ids vaccinations because of their religion? Unfortunately, in cases like these the answer isn't so readily apparent.
The First Amendment, while at once abundantly clear ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is simultaneously limited. The Founders couldn't possibly have considered such things as genital mutilation, or contraception, or blood transfusions, or any of the modern areas where law and religion become entangled. For this reason, legislators need to take a cautious and measured approach when dealing with matters of religious liberty. The goal should be to allow as much freedom as possible in practicing religion while protecting the rights of others not to be victimized by an expression of religion. Unfortunately, broad and poorly-worded legislation is not the way to go about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment