Written by Don Byrd
“Religious liberty” doesn’t mean just one thing. Depending on your traditions of faith, or your personal priorities, the free exercise of religion may look very different for you than it does for others. Religious exercise can emphasize ritual and ceremony; or it can be about attire, or diet; it can be about how we minister to others, or about the rules and principles to which we commit ourselves. It can mean different things at different times of the year, or times of the day.
I thought about this diversity of meaning after reading this news story about Senator James Lankford’s (R-OK) effort to have the citizenship test changed. One of the test answers apparently refers to the “freedom to worship.” In a letter to the Homeland Security Secretary, Lankford argues that “worship” is not a big enough word, and the phrase should be replaced in the test with “freedom of religion:”
“Worship confines you to a location. Freedom of religion is the right to exercise your religious beliefs – it is the ability for Americans to live out their faith or to choose to have no faith at all.”
I am not sure I agree that “worship confines you to a location,” but even that disagreement probably helps prove the point. The exercise of one’s faith can be about a lot of things.
Professor Stephen Carter, in a column reflecting on the Abercrombie ruling, also discusses the importance of the freedom to act:
Faith is not simply belief. It’s action consistent with belief.
Why did Elauf wear the headscarf to her interview? Because, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority, it was “consistent with her understanding of her religion’s requirements.” Suppose the employer had responded that she was free to believe whatever she wanted, as long as she removed her hijab at work? It’s easy to see how that approach would poison her ability to live according to her faith.
Without the freedom to act, freedom of religion becomes meaningless.
Of course, the freedom of conscience – the freedom to believe or not believe – is fundamental to any freedom of religion. And by itself, the freedom of belief would be pretty easy to protect under the law, wouldn’t it? It is protecting the right to act in accordance with one’s beliefs that can be complicated, especially when those actions conflict with the interests of others.
One thing is for sure: in protecting religious freedom, there will be conflict. But isn’t that the whole point? Would it even feel like a freedom if were always effortless? If it asked nothing of society? Doesn’t “freedom” imply “freedom in the face of . . . “? Drawing those lines between one’s individual religious freedom and the societal resistance that defines it is part of the essential work of a democracy. Sometimes, it is harder work than others.
The challenge of religious liberty is not just that there are so many religions; it is also that “religion” can mean so many different things. We should embrace policies that are flexible enough to honor this great diversity, while mindful of the conflicts it can create.
