A couple of weeks ago, this Guest Column was posted in our local paper (referencing The Religious Freedom Restoration Bill now before the Indiana Senate.
The bill reads: "Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. "
Here's the Guest Column from Pastor Steve Viars:
"OK, let me get this straight. Freedom Indiana has just announced their opposition to ... wait for it ... the religious freedom bill. That's like the American Cattleman's Association opposing cows. I'm not sure these dear folks thought this one all the way through.
This is similar to our local so-called Citizens for Civil Rights whose behavior over the years demonstrates that they are really only concerned for the rights of themselves and their left-leaning friends. It seems to me that these groups ought to be more transparent in the names they choose for their organizations. How about "Freedom Just for Those in Indiana Who Agree with Us and Everyone Else Can Take a Hike" or "Citizens Concerned Only for the Civil Rights of the Cultural Liberals"?
Why is it that progressives seem hell-bent on imposing their brand of morality or — in many cases — immorality, on everyone else by force of governmental law? Are they that insecure about the quality of their ideals? Doesn't civility require — even demand — an approach to community life that seeks to balance the legitimate needs, desires, and rights of a variety of world and life views?
Good men and women of faith ought to be able to practice their religious beliefs in all spheres of life without incessant harassment from those who want to live differently. For example, a Jewish family should be able to start a video production business and choose not to make movies for the wicked pornographer down the street. An Amish man should be able to purchase a catering company and prefer not to provide food for the area swingers convention. A Muslim woman should be able to buy a wedding hall and decide to only make it available for activities she believes are consistent with her beliefs about marriage. It's not like the progressives have no other places to make their movies, buy their food or hold their celebration
Whether it is advisable for such persons of faith to practice their religion in these ways is beside the point. Truthfully, if I was a Christian baker, I'd make my gay neighbor the best wedding cake I possibly could out of a desire to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. But there is a significant difference between living that way by personal choice versus living that way by governmental coercion. The question here is how much value we place on the religious freedom of everyone in our state, even when we find such religious expression questionable or even objectionable.
Of course some will run to the tired accusation that this legislation promotes discrimination. The challenge is — that door swings both ways. You can either discriminate against the pornographer or discriminate against the religious person who prefers not to use his privately purchased equipment for such evil purposes. How hard is that decision?
We saw this logical inconsistency several years ago during the public hearings regarding Faith West. A spokesperson for the West Lafayette Human Relations Commission appeared at the final community meeting to express their views on our development and their expectations for our behavior.
This outrageous action was completely inconsistent with the group's legal purpose and to my knowledge, is something the Human Relations Commission has never done before or since. That is the essence of discrimination — treating someone differently or illegally based on an inherent or perceived difference, in our case — our religious beliefs.
The irony was too delicious for words — a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission discriminating against a church because of the unfounded concern that the church might discriminate against someone else. I seriously considered reporting the Human Relations Commission, to itself.
What is needed in this conversation is balance — which as one wag observed — is that elusive point we all pass on the way to our next extreme. I would encourage my friends at Freedom Indiana to reconsider their opposition to the religious freedom bill. If not, then could you at least change your name?
AND......Here's MY response:
As I read the recently-named “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (SB 101), all I could think was, “Wow! What a great state I live in! Evidently, poverty no longer exists, everyone who wants a job has one, and all of our students must be above average! Because, if any of these were still a problem, our legislators would be working around the clock to solve them, instead of spending even one minute on a poorly-worded, divisive bill such as this one!” Sadly, I was mistaken. Our public schools still struggle to be funded, students still come to school hungry and ill-clothed, we still have unemployment. But, the politicians in the Statehouse have decided it’s far more important to waste time and taxpayer money to pass a bill that will only lead to more incivility and acrimony among its’ citizenry. Don’t believe me? One only has to read Pastor Viars’ Guest Column to begin to understand how the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” will divide.
The business owners I know serve every person who comes through their doors (except the ones without shirts and shoes). In this shaky business climate, one cannot be selective or discriminatory if one wants to be profitable. Most business owners know if word gets out that they refused service to this person or that one, word will get out to friends and relatives of said person, and people will stop frequenting their establishment and worst of all, they will take their business elsewhere. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan business owners who want to be successful do not question the customer coming through the door, for that can be a slippery slope: “Just one last question before I serve you your ice cream sundae—do you use Viagra? Because use of that drug is not covered in my Holy Book, so therefore I cannot in good conscience serve you.” I agree—that one was silly. As is this one: “Your child is [insert medical condition here]? I’m sorry, if you were a better [insert religious sect here], your child would already be cured, and we could allow them to come to school here at Perfect In Every Way Private Academy.” But it’s far more likely, under SB 101, the latter would actually happen--legally.
As Pastor Viars points out, “There is a significant difference between living that way by personal choice versus living that way by government coercion.” It’s a slippery slope indeed, as we are all fallible human beings; rather than unite, this law will divide us. Can you imagine owning a business, and having a deacon from your church say to you, “Why did you serve that customer? You know he’s Catholic. The law says it’s ok for you, legally, to refuse service. Why didn’t you do it? Aren’t you a good Lutheran?” Or, someone using the words of any religious teacher, incorrectly, to avoid treating another human being at their family-owned pharmacy? I would like to know who is going to be the final arbitrator when Sam Smith says, “I didn’t give him pills because Jesus said people wearing purple could not enter Heaven.” Of course, we all know Jesus didn’t say that, but then again, Jesus did not say one word about homosexuality, and look how that fact has been ignored and misused. It would be a worst-case scenario, but we could easily become a state with “no go zones” for Christians or Jews or Muslims or German Baptists. Our economy would suffer too; what company would want to locate to a state with sectarian areas? Or, more to the point, what company will want to relocate to a state with a poorly written law in effect, which may or may not impact who they can or cannot hire?
SB 101, while purporting to protect ones’ freedom of religion, is just a “feel good” law; it will make some feel good, and will alienate others. Not all religious people are in favor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; in fact, I've seen very little religious diversity among those pushing for passage. Perhaps that’s because we see there are far greater problems that need to be solved in our state. Perhaps that’s because most people of faith stand on the side of love, and believe and practice the Golden Rule, “Treat others the way you wish to be treated,” and believe that, until all are treated fairly in our state, we all will suffer. Perhaps all of us should push for codifying the Golden Rule in the State of Indiana, but that would mean we were progressive—“favoring social reform”— and some have used this word as a pejorative.
Words can be used to unite, and words can be used to divide. The words contained in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will most certainly be used to divide us. To some, much has been given. The question is: How will you use this power? For the betterment of all, or for the select few? As many religious books will advise—whatever you do, do it in love.
