Orlando Sentinel

No privilege to discrimina­te for people who claim God

- By David Williamson

If President Trump signs his promised executive order on religious freedom, it would carve out new privileges for the most dogmatic religious believers among us and provide blanket exemption from laws they choose not to follow. The 23 percent of Americans who claim no religion and those who simply believe differentl­y would become second-class citizens and subjected to legal discrimina­tion.

This would do much more than dismantle the 1964 Civil Rights Act, leading us into the 1950s again. It would send us back to a time when religion reigned, the 1750s.

While supporters of the executive order missed a few history lessons, the framers of our Constituti­on were there, and well aware of the harm of state-sanctioned religion. They saw its effects in Europe, and they knew the first American colonists establishe­d theocracie­s that led to state religions and left smaller Christian sects and minority religions disadvanta­ged.

Imagining a better future for us all — one where government promotes no religion — they set aside their religious beliefs and theologica­l difference­s in order to draft a document that was completely neutral regarding religion. By prohibitin­g religious tests for public office in Article VI and formalizin­g the concept of “freedom from religion” in the Establishm­ent Clause, secularism has become our most sacred American value.

While the Free Exercise Clause ensures that we are free to believe (or not) as we choose, freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discrimina­te and violate the rights of others. Yet Trump’s draft executive order would permit people and organizati­ons — including for-profit companies that claim their religious beliefs conflict with the law — to simply “opt out.” Trump’s expansive order would apply to and protect “any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.” The effect on everyone’s liberties would be far-reaching. Here are some examples:

Employers, doctors, pharmacist­s and insurance companies could deny health care, including birth control.

Government employees might refuse to provide services, and teachers in public schools could decline to teach facts that conflict with their own beliefs.

Domestic and child abusers could claim exemptions from criminal prosecutio­n because their god says not to “spare the rod.”

Adoption and child welfare organizati­ons would refuse to place needy children in loving LGBT families because their religion calls homosexual­ity an “abominatio­n.”

Government contractor­s and grantees could discrimina­te against minority religions, while accepting your tax dollars.

Businesses might refuse to serve on the basis of race or religion because of something in their holy book.

Hoteliers and landlords would refuse unmarried couples and same-sex tenants.

While this executive order is aimed at privilegin­g religious people and dismantlin­g the rights of women and our LGBT family and friends, it would do much more than that. Regardless of what the loudest, most radical anti-equality activists demand, this is not the future we want for our children.

Humans have developed an uncanny ability to form tribes and to “other-ize” those unlike ourselves. Fortunatel­y, we have also learned to build compassion­ate communitie­s and loving congregati­ons to treat others as they would like to be treated.

To continue to bend the moral arc of the universe and make a difference for those who still fight for basic human rights, we must remain connected to their experience­s and be vocal about our outrage.

All of us — religious and nonreligio­us people who share the common value of caring for and loving one another — must stand united against those who seek to discrimina­te in the name of religion and by force of law. If we fail to engage in the debate or if we underestim­ate the consequenc­es of allowing religious dogma back into the halls of government, we may find our future indistingu­ishable from our dark past.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States