Written by Don Byrd
Pundits, reporters, and experts are weighing in today on the aftermath of Governor Brewer’s decision to veto controversial amendments to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The changes were designed to bolster businesses and individuals’ right to refuse service when in conflict with religious beliefs. Over the course of the last couple of weeks, the idea – which many states are considering in some form – has gained national attention.
Here are some clips from today’s perspective pieces around the web:
Quoted in the Washington Post report, Law professor and church-state scholar Douglas Laycock suggests the rhetoric is too high on both sides:
Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor who specializes in issues of religious freedom, said controversy over a handful of cases involving social issues is “creating a public that is hostile to the very idea of religious liberty.”
“The debate has been captured by utterly intolerant people on both sides,” he said. “Everybody wants religious liberty for me, and my opponent ground into the dust.”
Columnist E.J. Dionne worries that the push for conscience rights will further alienate young people from religion:
Pushing “conscience exemptions” beyond reasonable limits threatens a long-standing American habit of having government go out of its way to accommodate the commitments of religious people.
…
Those who cherish religious faith ought to be heartsick that it is so often invoked not to advance compassion and understanding but rather to justify discrimination and even bigotry. This is doing serious harm to our religious traditions, particularly among the young.
Ron Fournier warns that hyperbole from the Religious Right undermines the message of religious freedom, as when Family Research Council head Tony Perkins claimed Governor Brewer’s veto was an announcement that she “supports government discrimination against people’s religious freedom.”
No, that’s not what she’s saying. . . . Perkins knows better, and his inflammatory language hurts his cause.
To be clear, I worry about infringements on personal liberties under Presidents Obama and Bush, and I consider religious freedom a cornerstone of American democracy. I empathize with the views of Perkins and others, but I am suspicious when people use religion to marginalize others. . . . I hear echoes of the segregated South.
…
My takeaway: In this great and diverse country, we are capable of protecting people’s right to express their faith and worship freely without tramping others’ rights to live freely.
What do you think? What does this week, and this debate, say about the state of religious freedom today? Send me a note – don.byrd – at – comcast.net, or tweet at me: @bjcblog. I would love to hear your thoughts.
