Reiya Iyub-Tumblr Post 4
There is no doubt that there is a small, but significant, difference between religious liberty and religious freedom. While both phrases denote the same things: the right for individuals to practice their religion without oppression, they do carry different connotations. Religious liberty is used in the context that an individual has the right to resist certain practices due to their religious beliefs, while religious freedom is more used to defend an individual’s right to hold certain beliefs without being persecuted. Furthermore, whereas religious liberty is more commonly associated with defending Christianity, religious freedom is more so related to defending other minority religions.This explains why many conservative Christians business owners that are targeted for their refusal serve certain customers on account of their religion, feel as if their right to religious liberty is being threatened; it also explains why those who are against law that protect conservative Christians feel as if their right to religious freedom is being abandoned. So which side should the government rule in favor of: religious freedom, or religious liberty? The real question is: Should a side be favored?
The articles and videos dealing with religious freedom and religious liberty seeks to answer the question above. Religious liberty defenders feel attacked when certain laws require them to accommodate things that they are uncomfortable with due to religious beliefs. For instance, the conservative Christian craft store, Hobby Lobby, resisted the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide contraceptives to its workers by referencing an infringement on their religious liberty. Religious freedom defenders feel forsaken when certain laws restrict individuals who have other convictions. The law passed in Indiana as an extension to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that makes it acceptable for business owners to refuse customers on the basis of religious reasons, has been criticized for encouraging discrimination. One can see that among the conflict between religious freedom and religious liberty, there is also a conflict between religion and the law.
Something that I noted in the articles and videos discussing these issues, was that both sides threaten genuine religious freedom or liberty in the process of trying to defend it. Although I believe in tolerance of all types of people and faiths, I do not believe that it should be forced upon anyone. After watching “The Rebel” commander, Ezra Levant, share his views on the hypocrisy in protecting religious freedom, I began to understand the perspectives of those in support of religious liberty a bit better. At the beginning, I agreed that religious freedom was being abandoned in support of those protecting religious liberty because I did not see how certain laws that worked to protect minority religions affected the conservative Christians. I agreed when Levant stated that a person should not be forced by law to support anything against their religious beliefs, such as employers being forced to pay for contraceptives for their employees that go against their religious beliefs. To coerce someone participate in something against what they strongly believe in is not protecting their right to practice their religion. However, I disagreed with the Indiana law that makes it acceptable for business owners to turn customers away due to religious reasons. The Daily Show reporter was justified when stating that this is an approval for discrimination. If this law were to take effect, then this would cause widespread discrimination of people of all backgrounds, such as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. The Syrian Refugee ban that was discussed in our class was similar to this law in the sense that it encouraged discrimination against those of Muslim backgrounds. It is at the forefront of the government responsibility to protect every individual’s civil rights, even with matters of religion involved. As Clinton so promptly stated, “There should be a space between government and religion”. I furthermore agree with the Daily Show reporter in his analogy of when the Bible was used to justify slavery because it shows, yet again, that the core values of our government should triumph in these cases. In the end, I believe that if the government wants truly wants to use the terms “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” interchangeably, then they should establish laws that protect both sides, not laws in favor of one over the other. No law should force an individual to do something they do not agree to based on religious grounds, nor should any law allow the right to discriminate against another person.