Monday, June 24, 2013
Religious freedom is not a 'second-class right'
Speaking of Mary Ann Glendon . . . here is her recent Washington Post op-ed, "Religious freedom is not a 'second-class right'". A bit:
Instead of fostering discord in the body politic or attempting to make everyone think in lockstep, our policy makers would do well to be more respectful of the American tradition of pluralism. At the most fundamental level, those wielding governmental power must recognize that disagreement is not discrimination. Disagreement is an essential part of any democratic system. Conflicting ideas and diverging worldviews are signs of a healthy society.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/06/religious-freedom-is-not-a-second-class-right.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
That's a good bland statement but on the merits, as shown in the past, we disagree in various cases.
I do not see a threat of "religious freedom itself is in danger of becoming a second-class right" particularly, e.g., policies where individuals have more freedom to make religious decisions. For instance, to have same sex marriage protections pursuant to their religious beliefs. Now, in most states, the religions of some are favored. In NY, those who are married in religious ceremonies to members of the same sex can obtain secular marriage benefits. In NJ, they can obtain civil union benefits. In other states, none at all.
As to 'religious providers of health, educational and social services cooperate with government’s ideological programs threatens a death blow to the diversity,' they already do in various respects. If the government provides money, those who take it have certain obligations. Racial discrimination is barred in various cases. The debate is where lines are to be drawn.
The rhetoric of such op-eds to me are of limited assistance to hard questions.