Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Monday Read: "Stop Accusing Religious Conservatives of 'Using' Religion"
19 Plays3 years ago
In today's episode of Interactions, we hear from Raphael Friedman and his Canopy Forum Article "Stop Accusing Religious Conservatives of 'Using' Religion."
What happens when an individual or institution claims a religious exemption from a law that protects others' rights? LGBTQ+ rights, for example, or the rights of women? These are complex questions in the area of law and religion, and when these conflicts arise, the dialogue gets heated.
As with all emotionally charged debate, Friedman argues, the rhetoric we use matters--a lot. Certain terms leveled against conservatives carry the danger of distracting from the legal issues at stake.
If we are to have the chance of a productive debate, we can’t accuse religious conservatives of “using” religion.
To learn more, read the original article on Canopy Forum. You can purchase Professor John Witte, Jr.'s new book, "The Blessings of Liberty," here.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Law and Religion
00:00:05
Speaker
Hello, and welcome back to another episode of Interactions, a podcast about law and religion and how they interact in the world around us. Today, we're going to be discussing the issue of religious exemptions from legal mandates.
Complexity of Legal and Religious Conflicts
00:00:22
Speaker
What happens when the legal rights of one group clashes with the religious freedom of another? LGBTQ plus rights, for example, or the rights of women? These are complex questions in the area of law and religion. And when these conflicts arise, the dialogue gets heated.
Impact of Language on Religious Exemption Debates
00:00:43
Speaker
In today's episode, Raphael Friedman suggests that certain phrases lodged against the religious conservatives responsible for claiming these exemptions only harm the debate. Words like bigot, as well as the accusation that conservatives are only using their religion in order to spread hatred.
00:01:06
Speaker
These terms are not only usually inaccurate, Friedman claims, and they aren't even just hurtful or polarizing. Instead, these terms carry the danger of distracting from the real legal issues.
00:01:23
Speaker
If we are to have the chance of a productive debate, we can't accuse religious conservatives of using religion. I'm Janet Metzger, and this is Stop Accusing Religious Conservatives of Using Religion by Raphael Friedman.
Supreme Court's Role in Religious Liberty Cases
00:01:52
Speaker
Figuring out the proper boundaries for religious liberty continues to be a hot-button issue in America. Friction between religious groups and other members of society has pervaded the headlines, and these conflicts aren't going away anytime soon.
00:02:11
Speaker
Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of cases where religious liberty claims have clashed with the rights of other citizens. The laws that have been challenged include those involving public health during the pandemic,
00:02:28
Speaker
several anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ plus rights, and laws designed to ensure access to contraceptive care. This list is likely only to grow. These conflicts are deeply personal and arouse fiery passion on all sides.
Language Barriers in Legal Discussions
00:02:49
Speaker
And as with all emotionally charged debate, the rhetoric we use matters a lot.
00:02:56
Speaker
A number of phrases commonly used to characterize certain religious liberty claims only harm the debate. Here, I'm not going to try to judge the merits of any legal argument. Instead, I want to identify some terminology frequently aimed at religious conservatives which I believe should be retired.
00:03:19
Speaker
These terms are usually inaccurate. They are also hurtful and unnecessarily polarizing. And they often obfuscate what's actually the core of the legal issue.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Analysis
00:03:33
Speaker
Here are some obvious examples, like the label of bigot, sometimes being branded on religious conservatives who embrace particular viewpoints.
00:03:43
Speaker
And then there are the more subtle examples. A common one is the phrase, using religion to do something. For example, the website of the ACLU has a page entitled, End the Use of Religion to Discriminate, followed by a list of legal issues where religious freedom claims arise.
00:04:06
Speaker
This phrase is loaded. If someone says they feel used, they are suggesting that someone feigned alliance to them for their own selfish benefit. This is not usually the case when it comes to religious observance.
00:04:22
Speaker
It's one thing to call the dictates of a religion immoral, or to suggest that someone is misunderstanding the teachings of their religion. But to accuse someone of merely using their religion is quite another.
00:04:39
Speaker
In 2017, a majority of the Supreme Court highlighted this point when they condemned statements made by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during a hearing involving complaints leveled against a devout Christian baker. This case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, is probably familiar to you.
00:05:04
Speaker
Jack Phillips, a bake shop owner, refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he said it would be a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony, which he opposed on religious grounds.
00:05:19
Speaker
One commissioner told Mr. Phillips that it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric when people use their religion to hurt others. In response, the court said that the commissioner's statements in suggesting that Mr. Phillips was insincere displayed clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.
00:05:48
Speaker
It is beyond a doubt that Mr. Phillips's beliefs are deeply insulting to the LGBTQ plus community and that his refusal to serve the couple was hurtful. But Mr. Phillips was not using his religion. As the court noted, rather than looking for an excuse to hurt people, he was doing his best to adhere to his sincere religious beliefs.
00:06:15
Speaker
In addition to adding polarizing fuel to an already raging fire, the Commissioner's statements distracted from the resolution of a pressing legal dispute. The legal question that should have been the sole focus of the Commission's hearing was whether Mr. Phillips was allowed to flout a Colorado law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
00:06:40
Speaker
The Constitution forbids the government from enacting laws which prohibit the free exercise of religion. On the other hand, anti-discrimination laws may not be able to achieve their purpose if religious store owners are exempted. Plus, the scope of protection afforded to religious practice by the free exercise clause has long been debated at the court.
00:07:07
Speaker
Instead of tackling the legal questions that were at the heart of the case, the commissioner personally attacked Mr. Phillips and, in doing so, distracted from the meaningful consideration of the litigants' claims.
Unresolved Questions from Masterpiece Cakeshop
00:07:22
Speaker
And, as a result, we were left with a Supreme Court decision that largely avoided the pressing question of whether anti-discrimination laws must accommodate religious opposition to same-sex marriage.
00:07:38
Speaker
We'll be right back after the break.
Book Recommendation on Human Rights and Religion
00:08:05
Speaker
Hi Interactions Listeners, this is Justin Latterall from the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. If you liked this episode, you might be interested in John Whitty's new book, The Blessings of Liberty, Human Rights and Religious Freedom in the Western Legal Tradition. This book explores the role that religion has played in the formation of rights in the Western legal tradition. Today, some religious critics of human rights see human rights as a betrayal of Christianity.
00:08:33
Speaker
while other critics see religious freedom as a threat to human rights. John Whitty responds to both of these challenges and insists that protecting religious freedom is actually the best way to protect many other fundamental rights, despite the fact that religious freedom and other fundamental rights can sometimes clash.
00:08:53
Speaker
Are human rights a modern invention? And is religious freedom a mere obstacle to human rights today? Explore these questions and more with John Whitty in The Blessings of Liberty, new from Cambridge University Press. Find out more by clicking the link in the episode description. Thank you for listening to Interactions.
Assessing Religious Belief Sincerity in Law
00:09:21
Speaker
Phrases like using religion are problematic because they presuppose that the religious belief in question is merely a disingenuous guise for insidious hate, when usually this is inaccurate.
00:09:36
Speaker
The more these phrases are used, the harder it will be for resolutions to be reached. Certainly, some religious justifications for activities which harm others are pretextual, stemming from biases held before or outside of any conversion to a faith practice.
00:09:55
Speaker
However, it's very difficult, if not completely impossible, to determine the authenticity of another person's belief. As a result, judges and litigants on the other side should, at the very least, be open to the possibility that a religious party is acting in good faith.
00:10:16
Speaker
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, the commissioner in his response to Mr. Phillips also referenced religious justifications which were used to promote slavery and the Holocaust. Disturbingly, two dissenting justices on the Supreme Court refused to join their colleagues in condemning the comparison.
00:10:38
Speaker
Many legal scholars jumped to defend the commissioner and argued that her historical observations were undeniably true. However, the accuracy of the commissioner's statements was never the question. Her statements evidence hostility toward religion because they suggest that Mr. Phillips's beliefs share the insincerity and reprehensible of the beliefs of slave owners and Nazis.
00:11:07
Speaker
Her statements were not said in the abstract. Instead, they were directed at Mr. Phillips. Context matters, especially when words like slavery and the Holocaust are being used. The intuition to treat some religious liberty claims with disdain is more likely than not motivated by a virtuous empathy we feel for those who are hurt by these claims.
00:11:36
Speaker
While the urge to demonize religious adherence is understandable, it should be resisted. Name-calling and labeling never resolve conflict. And I would even argue that the damning of religious conservatives is usually wrong. Here's why.
00:11:53
Speaker
Nuns who oppose contraception or abortion do not hate women. Church or synagogue goers who oppose harsh COVID-19 restrictions on their houses of worship are not apathetic toward public health. Jack Phillips did not hate the couple who requested the cake.
00:12:14
Speaker
there is a fundamental, though subtle, difference between the motivation for a behavior and its effect. Opposition to abortion, contraception, or same-sex marriage is not necessarily rooted in prejudice against women or gay people, even though they are undoubtedly the ones most harmed by it.
00:12:38
Speaker
I appreciate that the inextricable link between gender and reproductive decisions, as well as the obvious link between homosexuality and same-sex marriage, makes parsing discriminatory intent from discriminatory effect difficult. Still, if parties on the opposite side of conservative religious beliefs acknowledge that distinction, religious parties will be better understood.
00:13:07
Speaker
This will improve rhetoric and allow the legal questions these cases present to take the stage without distraction.
00:13:16
Speaker
Of course, none of this means that society must embrace any of these religious beliefs. And none of this means that the law should necessarily grant religious exemptions that interfere with other people's rights. But the debate has to be reframed so that it is less demeaning and more tolerant of deeply held religious beliefs even when they collide with other rights.
AOC's View on Religious Exemptions
00:13:44
Speaker
Similarly, troubling rhetoric also appears in the political arena. In an undeniably poignant and stirring plea on the House floor in February of 2020, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez denounced religious exemptions to laws which promote access to health care.
00:14:07
Speaker
amidst the eloquence and depth of conviction that permeated her address, however, was language that echoed the sentiment of the Colorado Commissioner.
00:14:18
Speaker
Consider her claim that the only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry. A quick Google search belies that assertion. The history of religious liberty jurisprudence is full of cases in which the religious parties were the ones who were victims of bigotry.
00:14:38
Speaker
But even if we extend Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez the benefit of poetic license, her underlying point is misguided for all the reasons stated above. Issues surrounding conservative religious beliefs will continue to sit front and center in courts of law and in the court of public opinion. We will do better if certain tropes are dropped from the conversation.
00:15:15
Speaker
That was Stop Accusing Religious Conservatives of Using Religion by Raphael Friedman. You can find the full article on Canopy Forum by following the link in the episode description. Canopy Forum and the Interactions podcast are distributed by the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and produced by Anna Knudsen. I am your narrator, Janet Metzger.
00:15:43
Speaker
You can follow Canopy Forum on Twitter or Facebook, and subscribe to Interactions on your favorite podcast platform. Thank you for listening.