Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Religious Freedom Debate in North Dakota
They're really at the cutting edge In North Dakota now: they're awash not only in oil, but also in controversy over religious freedom. A proposed state constitutional amendment, on the ballot for June 12, would adopt for the state the "burden on religious exercise/compelling interest" test already applicable to the federal government through RFRA and to 27 states through statutes or constitutional rules. But the proposal has come under attack from a variety of groups. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, which reaches much of the state, suggested in an editorial that the amendment was merely the handiwork, and for the benefit, of Catholic bishops and religious-right activists. So I published this op-ed response in the paper arguing that such measures protect religious liberty even-handedly, and with reasonable limits, for all.
As I've said here before, a great challenge today is to convince citizens of all political stripes that vigorous religious freedom is not just a ploy for the right--because more and more people dismiss it as that--but an inheritance of all Americans and a treasure of our society.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/05/religious-freedom-debate-in-north-dakota.html
Comments
Excellent editorial, frightening comments on it at the Tribune. It would appear that you have more work to do to convince everyone of the treasure that is the first amendment.
Posted by: Tim Anderson | May 30, 2012 2:33:03 PM
"So I published this op-ed response in the paper arguing that such measures protect religious liberty even-handedly, and with reasonable limits, for all."
Does that include the liberty of us non-believers? I don't believe it for a minute.
Posted by: TM | Aug 6, 2012 8:52:36 PM
Let me be more explicit. Americans, by their own description, are more than 80% religious and some 15% or so atheist or agnostic. Why on earth is it that the religious majority "needs" additional measures to "protect their religious liberty", and from whom? From the tiny minority of non-believers who are all but banned from any kind of political office? Come on. Get serious. Why is the Bill of Rights not good enough any more?
The answer is clear: the Bill of Rights, in current interpretation, protects both believers and non-believers and the religious right can't live with that. They can't live with the idea that, while they may object to contraception and will never be forced to use it against their will, most of us actually want it.
Posted by: TM | Aug 6, 2012 9:07:12 PM
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.