Civil Strategies to Defend Religious Freedom for All People of Faith
COMMENTARY: Now is not the time to panic. People of faith need strategies to weather this storm.
“In his first two weeks in office, President Biden has signed nearly as many executive orders as Franklin Roosevelt signed in his entire first month,” reported National Public Radio recently. In addition to this flurry of executive orders, the president has pulled other levers of executive authority by signing presidential memoranda, proclamations and letters. Some of these early actions are squarely at odds with the religious beliefs of many Americans.
Now is not the time to panic. People of faith need strategies to weather this storm.
Ryan Anderson, newly appointed president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., recently wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal observing that “basic truths about human nature” are not solely the concern of the religious.
“We need to oppose the left’s agenda on the merits. It’s the principled thing to do, and it will be good politics given where the American people actually are on the issues,” urged Anderson.
The Supreme Court is currently not dominated by “activist judges.” But, thank goodness, it is sympathetic to the defense of religious freedom and conscience rights. Just look at some recent decisions.
The high court just taught California a lesson: Worship-targeting is unconstitutional. Two churches in California — South Bay United Pentecostal and Harvest Rock Church — went to court to stop rules banning indoor worship and singing in church in certain areas of the state.
The Supreme Court handed the churches a partial victory by halting the ban on indoor worship. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “the state’s present determination — that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero — appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.” Please note: Only an order by a court could reopen cathedrals in California.
It also mustn’t be forgotten that the Supreme Court has all but buried state Blaine Amendments — anti-Catholic laws from the late 1800s that barred government funds from benefitting “sectarian” activity in two recent cases. The first involved the exclusion of a church-run preschool from a Missouri grant program.
“In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit,” explained Chief Justice John Roberts. Such an exclusion, Roberts continued, “is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”
The second case, decided last summer, involved a state-sponsored private-school scholarship program in Montana that was not open to religious schools. Roberts again wrote for the majority: “The prohibition before us today burdens not only religious schools but also the families whose children attend or hope to attend them.” School-choice initiatives in Montana would have had to exclude Catholic and other religious schools had the Supreme Court not ruled.
This past summer the Supreme Court again sided with the sisters when progressive state attorneys general in Pennsylvania (Josh Shapiro) and California (Becerra) objected to the federal government accommodation. When Biden undoes the exemption — which he has pledged he will do — should the sisters give up? Certainly not.
Finally, this term the Supreme Court will decide if the city of Philadelphia can shut out the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from partnering in foster care. The archdiocese is unwilling to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Instead, it offers to refer any same-sex married couples interested in fostering children to other agencies working with the city.
Two longtime foster mothers joined the archdiocese to object in court. Catholic-run foster-care and adoption programs in other parts of the country, when pressed to endorse same-sex marriages, have stopped operating. No sermon on the nature of traditional marriage could convince Philadelphia’s city officials to keep the doors of the Catholic agency open. But an order from the Supreme Court could achieve that.