Religious Freedom

Last night as part of my training for Public Affairs (my volunteer assignment at my church), I had the wonderful opportunity to learn from Steve Collis, Chairman of the Denver Chapter of the J. Reuben Clark Society, and expert in litigating for Religious Freedom. (I know some of you are lawyers or married to lawyers, so feel free to correct me or add insight to this as needed!)

Normally, I roll my eyes when somebody mentions "religious freedom" because so much of what people talk about revolves around fear and misinformation. But, Steve knows his stuff! It was an awesome opportunity to hear from somebody who actually knows what is really going on in regards to religious freedom and was willing to share his insight. I did not want the night to end! I could have listened to him for hours.

He started out relating the history of Religious Freedom (hereafter referred to "RF"). RF is, of course guaranteed in our Constitution- but, it is very ambiguous. When our country started, everybody was Protestant so there were never any RF issues. But then those darn Mormons came along with all of their crazy religious ideas. Suddenly, RF was put to the test, and as any student of Mormon History knows, RF lost. Big time Mormons were forced to give up some of their practices, lost voting rights, and almost lost their statehood as the courts decided against them time and time again.

Things settled down as Mormons complied with the laws, and then in 1993 RF was severely challenged again, and lost, ironically, because of a certain man named Justice Scalia. In an opinion with the acronym RFRA. You can research it if interested, but it basically said the government can make laws against religions if it is reasonable and applicable to all, not just religious institutions. So, that made things very muddy and didn't clarify RF at all. A couple of years later another law passed that made things even less clear called RULF (I think). Very crazy, but basically- nothing definitive about RF from the courts, though everything in regards to RF goes through The Constitution test.

This is Article 1 of The Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

All RF litigation hinges on two questions:

1. Is the government promoting one religion over another?

2. Is government preventing someone's exercise of their religion?

If the answer is is "yes" to either question, there is a problem.

Here's where it gets fun...

Generally speaking, when litigation occurs, RF wins. In fact, he pulled up the last 20 cases the SCOTUS was involved with, and 17 out of 20 times RF won, by a vote of 9-0. As in, unanimous. So the idea that RF is under attack by the courts is simply unfounded.

Where RF IS under attack, however, is culture wars. That's very different.

One person raised his hand very angry about the change in Boy Scouts that transgender boys can now be included. He wanted to know why the courts allowed this. Very calmly, Scott said, "That was not a legal decision- it never went to the courts. As a private entity, the BSA can choose who they allow into their clubs. It was a cultural shift that changed the BSA's mind, not a legal one.

How do you fight a cultural shift? His response: Being good missionaries. Show people that following Christ makes you a better person so that they will want to join your cause. Christians showing up to protest at Matthew Shepherd's funeral, for example, did not help the cause of Christianity in any way.

This was the part I loved best:

He talked a lot about how right now in the cultural wars neither side is willing to budge an inch. Almost every problem that occurs- from who bakes whose wedding cakes to where Mosques can be built- can be reached through compromise. But nobody is willing to compromise!

He talked a lot about the Utah Compromise (where LGBT groups were guaranteed a number of rights in UT) was one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed in regards to RF, but nobody outside of UT will replicate it. Ironically, right now, the LGBT has more rights in Utah than in any other state. The only way that happened was because the Mormon Church got behind the legislation, which meant the members got behind it, which meant the legislators got behind it.

But the LGBT community believes it was a loss because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted. They believe they had to make great sacrifices because they knew that's the best they could get in such a conservative state, but that they don't need to compromise anywhere else so they won't.

And, on the other side, no other state has a single entity (religious or otherwise) that will get behind a compromise bill to allow one to go through, as nobody else on the right is willing to budge, either. So in every other state there is deadlock.

He said almost every case he sees is on the local level in local communities. For example, right now in Aurora (just down the street from my house), a Muslim community wants to build a community church, basically a YMCA. It will have a basketball court, swimming pool, prayer room, and the like. Basically, it's like every Mormon church building built all over the world (except we should add pools to our buildings). The Muslim community simply wants what every other religious community wants- a place where their kids can come hang out and stay off the streets and out of trouble.

But the city of  Aurora is turning them down because they are Muslim. This is a gross infringement on their RF based on The Constitution.

He talked about why that was a problem for all of us. First, it's against The Constitution. Secondly, if they can turn it down for them, they can turn it down for us, too (like how every time we try to build a temple city councils try to stop us- that is also an infringement to RF). It is in all of our best interest to allow ALL religions, even ones that our not our own, to build buildings and exercise their RF. If we only defend RF when it affects us personally, that's a huge problem.

And that's my very brief summary of an incredible night where I actually got EXCITED about RF instead of just annoyed!