Religious Liberty Is an Individual Right
By Steve Byas
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eight seven," some, like Patrick Henry, argued against its adoption in part because the document contained no Bill of Rights to protect the states and the people from the United States government.On the other side, there were those who contended that no such Bill of Rights was even needed, because, as James Madison explained, the powers of the U.S. government under the Constitution were "few and defined." Therefore, if the Constitution did not delegate a power to the U.S. government, they just did not have that power.
While Madison's position is no doubt correct in theory, practice has shown that if the Bill of Rights did not exist, our liberties would be even more disrespected by federal authorities than they are now. For example, where would we be without the explicit wording of the Second Amendment?
To allay the concerns of Henry and his allies, Madison took the lead and introduced twelve amendments to the Constitution in Congress, ten of which were ratified by the states. These ten amendments are our cherished "Bill of Rights." They give us no rights, but rather simply protect rights we already possessed under the natural law. As Thomas Jefferson stated it in the Declaration of Independence, these rights are "unalienable," and he gave the famous examples of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Even a liberal Democrat acknowledged this as late as 1961, when President John Kennedy proclaimed in his inaugural address the "same revolutionary beliefs, that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God!"
So, we come to the First Amendment, and its protection of religious liberty. Its very first word tells us with unquestionable clarity just who is restricted by the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In the First Amendment it is "the people" whose rights are protected, just as it is in the Second, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth and the Sixth. In the Sixth Amendment, it states the "accused" shall have certain rights.
Yet, for some odd reason, Federal Judge Joe Heaton thinks individuals do not enjoy religious liberty, but only institutions like churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.
Judge Heaton, a former Republican state legislator, ruled against Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby, in its lawsuit to avoid certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obama Care). While, at least so far, courts have recognized a religious liberty exception for religious institutions like churches to pay for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees, Judge Heaton dismissed that the owners of Hobby Lobby have any religious liberty in this regard.
Heaton accepted that the Green family who own Hobby Lobby and Mardel's Christian stores have sincerely-held religious views against abortion, but contended in his decision that those beliefs were only "indirectly" burdened by the mandate's requirement that Hobby Lobby provide free coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in Hobby Lobby's self-funded insurance plan.
So, Heaton's legal reasoning is that a church has religious liberty, but an individual does not.
This is the acceptance of the liberal view that rights are held by virtue of being a member of a group (like a church, or perhaps an ethnic group, or even a gender), and only as a member of a group. A group recognized by the government, no doubt, as has been done in many authoritarian and totalitarian countries, where a group must be properly "registered" with the government. And, if one is not duly recognized, then that group has no rights, at least none recognized by the heavy hand of government.
One must be very clear as to what Heaton is, in effect, saying. The First Amendment protections of religious liberty is for institutions only, not individuals.
Would Heaton extend this logic to the Second Amendment, and say that we have no individual right to keep and bear arms, but only as part of a state-controlled militia?
We don't even need to skip to the Second Amendment to answer this question. What about the First Amendment protection of the freedom of the press? Does that not belong to an individual who makes copies at Kinko's, or is it just the right of the Oklahoman, the Tulsa World, or the New York Times? Would Heaton restrict the free speech of an individual, as well? Must one be the member of an organized lobbying group before he can "petition the Government for a redress of grievances?"
David Green, the CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby said, "These abortion-causing drugs go against our faith, and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and have supported our family and thousands of our employees and their families." Green added that to comply with the mandate would require them to "abandon our religious beliefs."
But Judge Heaton ruled that Green's religious beliefs are not protected under the First Amendment, that he can practice those beliefs only as a church, only as a cog in an institution, not as an individual.
This is a very dangerous principle that Judge Joe Heaton has espoused, a principle that, if upheld, guts the Bill of Rights.
Latest Commentary
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024