Is Religious Liberty In Jeopardy?

By the time you receive this, it will be Tuesday and the President will be arriving to speak at Smith Reynolds Airport. I have been asked to open the event with a prayer. I am so honored to have an opportunity to pray, with a crowd of believers, for our country and our leaders. These are troubled times and we need prayer now more than ever.  

There are those in our society who think prayer is a novelty and only the weak engage in it. I believe quite the contrary. Some of the most powerful people in the world, leaders of great kingdoms, have been dependent upon prayer and their faith.

There are those who think public prayer should not be allowed. It’s amazing that I receive some of the most vicious messages because I post scripture on my social media. And, of course, I write about my faith often on these pages.

Some critics tell me that public officials should not express their faith publicly. As if my Constitutional rights are suspended because I have been elected to office. It amazes me that there is so little knowledge about the freedoms we have when it comes to our religious liberty.  These critics often cite the “separation of church and state.”

There is much confusion around this phrase. Many believe is in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It is in neither. It was simply a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists that their religious liberty was an inalienable right and not a favored grant. Jefferson was clear that these restrictions were imposed on the federal government only and not the state government or religious authorities. By the way, Connecticut had an authorized state religion and did not want interference from the federal government. Jefferson was merely assuring them that would not happen.

How that phrase got to be enshrined as a restriction on individual religious liberty is beyond comprehension. Various Supreme Courts, through the years, have even referenced this phrase and used it in their decisions. Therefore, through Osmosis, it becomes part of the Constitution. It never has been and never can be.

Thankfully, over the last decade, the Supreme Court has upheld several religious liberty cases.  Recently, there have been two prominent cases with suits involving Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor. These cases involved mandates for health coverage vs Religious Liberty.

A court case at the Supreme Court this past year, Bostock vs Clayton County, will create an avenue for many more suits, I am sure.  In this case, the court determined that discrimination based on “sex” includes discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. This redefines “sex” in federal employment law.

The court ruling was a 6-3 decision. Many were surprised that Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan. Dissenting were Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas.

Writing the minority opinion, Justice Alito said, “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,”  He continued, “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’ And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to ‘mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.’”

Justice Alito wrote a stern word of warning: “The Court’s brusque refusal to consider the consequences of its reasoning is irresponsible. …Before issuing today’s radical decision, the Court should have given some thought to where its decision would lead. As the briefing in these cases has warned, the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety. No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unal­loyed victory for individual liberty.”

Writing separately, Judge Kavanaugh said, “…The ordinary meaning of sexual orientation discrimination is distinct from the ordinary meaning of sex discrimination. Federal law distinguishes the two. State law distinguishes the two. This Court’s cases distinguish the two. …History distinguishes the two. Psychology distinguishes the two. Sociology distinguishes the two. …Common sense distinguishes the two.”

“When [SCOTUS] usurps the role of Congress, as it does today,” continued Kavanaugh, “the public understandably becomes confused about who the policymakers really are in our system of separated powers, and inevitably becomes cynical about the oft-repeated aspiration that judges base their decisions on law rather than on personal preference.”

Citizens do not want judges making law. Their is a role for legislators and a role for judges. Each should just do the job assigned to them.