By Ramesh Ponnuru
Thursday, October 24, 2019
A lot of Democrats were annoyed by a comment Beto
O’Rourke made at a CNN forum on gay rights. Asked whether churches that “oppose
same-sex marriage” should lose their tax-exempt status, the former congressman
and current presidential-race asterisk said, “Yes. There can be no reward, no
benefit, no tax break, for anyone, any institution, any organization in
America, that denies the full human rights, that denies the full civil rights,
of everyone in America. So as president, we’re going to make that a priority.
And we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our
fellow Americans.”
Two other candidates for the Democratic nomination,
Senator Elizabeth Warren and South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, rejected this
idea. Legal analysts said that the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence blocks
governments from discriminating among churches on the basis of their doctrines.
Some liberal commentators criticized O’Rourke for handing Republicans a talking
point. Jordan Weissman wrote in Slate, “He is turning himself into a
walking straw man, the non-fringe guy Republicans can reliably point to when
they want to say, ‘See, the libs really do want to take your guns and
shut down your churches’” (emphasis in original).
O’Rourke himself backed down in part, with his campaign
explaining that the tax exemption would be revoked only for institutions that
fired or refused to hire people because they are married to someone of the same
sex.
But O’Rourke’s comment did not come out of nowhere.
During the high court’s consideration of whether the Constitution commands
same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether an affirmative answer
would lead to an end to tax exemptions for opponents. The Obama administration’s
lawyer arguing the case allowed that it might.
Over the last generation, progressives have become much
more hostile to claims of religious liberty and conscience rights. In 1993,
Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nearly by acclamation.
Under the law, people whose ability to exercise their religion was
substantially burdened by a government policy could ask for exemptions. Judges
would deny them only if applying the policy to them was the least restrictive
means of advancing a compelling governmental interest. Now, however, Democrats generally
want to narrow the 1993 law.
Liberal intellectuals have coalesced behind the view that
conservatives are now abusing claims of religious liberty. They have advanced
two principal arguments. First, they say that the law was originally meant to
protect minorities such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Quakers, not extremely large
groups, such as Catholics, that had lost political struggles. Second, they say
that religious freedom should be a “shield” and not a “sword”: not, that is, a
way religious believers can inflict harms on other people. Letting religious
employers refrain from offering their employees insurance plans that cover
contraception, or some forms of contraception, is on this theory an abuse. So
is letting religious vendors of wedding services — florists, bakers,
photographers, wedding-hall owners — decline to be involved in same-sex unions.
Whatever else may be said for them, both arguments are
departures from a long American tradition of religious pluralism. Religious
exemptions have historically been granted for large religious groups: The
Volstead Act implementing Prohibition exempted the sacramental use of alcohol,
such as in Catholic Masses. Religious objections to wars have long been
honored, too, even though in practice they have meant that other people have
had to risk their lives in the dissenters’ place, which is at least as large a
harm as having to find a different photographer.
Nevertheless, the American Civil Liberties Union has
switched its position on the religious-freedom law and so have many Democrats.
Many of their presidential candidates, including Senator Warren and Mayor
Buttigieg as well as O’Rourke, have endorsed the Equality Act, which forbids
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status and
specifically denies religious believers the ability to ask for an exemption. It
would be the first such exemption enacted since the 1993 law. Many of the
candidates have also endorsed the Do No Harm Act, which would weaken that law
by blocking any religious exemptions that would cause “meaningful harm,
including dignitary harm,” to anyone.
Around the same time that O’Rourke made his provocative
comment, Attorney General Bill Barr was causing a different kind of
religio-political controversy. In a speech at the University of Notre Dame, he
argued that the Founders thought religious belief was crucial to the health of
a free society, that the rise of secularism was causing baleful social
consequences, including an increased number of suicides and fatal drug overdoses,
and that secularist intolerance was a threat to religious freedom.
Barr painted with a broad brush. Critics could justly
have pointed out that his comment that “the Founding generation were
Christians” is an overstatement, or noted that some social trends, including a
long-running reduction in violent crime, tell against his gloom, or challenged
him to be more precise in defining “secularism.”
Instead they went nuts. Barr described the entertainment
industry and academia as engaged in “an unremitting assault on religion and
traditional values.” Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman said that
the line “comes close to denying the rights of nonbelievers to express their
disbelief.” That’s true only if Chapman’s criticism of Barr comes close to denying
religious people their right to free speech, which is to say it’s false.
Liberal legal commentator Dahlia Lithwick went beyond Chapman, taking Barr to
have engaged in coded anti-Semitism.
Catherine Rampell wrote in the Washington Post
that the speech was “terrifying” and that Barr had come out for a “state
establishment of religion.” Jeffrey Toobin, with customary restraint, told
readers of The New Yorker that Barr had given “the worst speech by an
Attorney General of the United States in modern history.”
Toobin took aim at Barr’s claim that the Framers had
thought free government was suitable only for a religious people. False, said
Toobin: They thought it was suitable for nonbelievers, too. Toobin cited
Justice Hugo Black, who wrote in 1961 that the government could not compel
belief or disbelief, or attempt to “aid all religions as against nonbelievers.”
Here Toobin has built a Jenga tower of non sequiturs. Barr didn’t say that
government should attempt to compel religious belief or that the Constitution
allows it; he didn’t contradict Black. Toobin himself didn’t actually
contradict the proposition Barr attributed to the Framers: Whether a free
society can include nonbelievers is a different question from whether it can be
dominated by them.
As it happens, the relationship between an individual’s
belief and society is the most important topic Barr got wrong. He said that
“Christianity teaches a micro-morality” while the “new secular religion teaches
macro-morality.” The former focuses on “our own personal morality and
transformation,” the latter on “commitment to political causes and collective
action to address social problems.”
This distinction does not hold up. The left-wing mindset
Barr has in mind can be extremely prescriptive about individuals’ use of
language, consumption choices, and associations. And Christianity asks
individuals to participate in fighting social evils. Christians involved in the
abolitionist, civil-rights, and pro-life movements were all told that they
should pray quietly at home and church, and all rejected that misunderstanding
of their faith.
This was a false step in Barr’s argument. He does not
really think of Christianity in this overly individualistic way, which is why
his speech also defended “laws that reflect traditional moral norms” against
abortion and euthanasia. The aggregated effects of individuals’ religious and
moral beliefs were more or less his theme.
Which brings us back to O’Rourke. It is not quite right
to say that the Supreme Court requires the government to be neutral among
religious institutions. It has allowed the revocation of a tax exemption for a
university that banned interracial dating on religious grounds. (That’s why
Justice Alito asked his question.) If the public comes not only to favor
same-sex marriage but to regard opposition to it as akin to racial bigotry,
then religious freedom will not long survive for the holdouts. In this discrete
matter, Barr is undoubtedly correct to posit that traditional religious belief
is a crucial protection for freedom.
He is likely correct in a broader way as well. Our sense
that religious freedom is worth protecting at all is based on the understanding
that being in the right relation with God, if God exists, is important. Without
that understanding, there is no need to specify a freedom to go to synagogue
rather than to affirm a freedom to enter and exit buildings generally. A
society that has broadly lost this sense of the divine will not grasp the case
for religious freedom and will greet its advocates with incomprehension — as
O’Rourke, and Barr’s critics, are illustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment