[vc_row type=”in_container” full_screen_row_position=”middle” column_margin=”default” column_direction=”default” column_direction_tablet=”default” column_direction_phone=”default” scene_position=”center” text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” row_border_radius=”none” row_border_radius_applies=”bg” overflow=”visible” overlay_strength=”0.3″ gradient_direction=”left_to_right” shape_divider_position=”bottom” bg_image_animation=”none”][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_tablet=”inherit” column_padding_phone=”inherit” column_padding_position=”all” column_element_direction_desktop=”default” column_element_spacing=”default” desktop_text_alignment=”default” tablet_text_alignment=”default” phone_text_alignment=”default” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ column_backdrop_filter=”none” column_shadow=”none” column_border_radius=”none” column_link_target=”_self” column_position=”default” gradient_direction=”left_to_right” overlay_strength=”0.3″ width=”1/1″ tablet_width_inherit=”default” animation_type=”default” bg_image_animation=”none” border_type=”simple” column_border_width=”none” column_border_style=”solid”][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Today, pro-lifers, Christians, and a number of religious groups enjoyed a monumental victory in the Supreme Court. David Green, owner and founder of Hobby Lobby (including Mardel and Conestoga Wood) filed a lawsuit against Obamacare’s HHS mandate in September 2012, which would have required faith-based organizations to include in their healthcare, free access to abortifacient contraceptive care. Abortifacient contraceptives contain substances that are abortion-inducing and are usually taken in the days or weeks following sex, or if taken before sex cannot guarantee the prevention of conception in all cases (such as the birth-control pill). It shouldn’t surprise us therefore that many faith-based organizations have opposed this violation of religious freedom. In the final 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot require faith-based institutions to provide their employees with abortifacient contraceptives against the owners’ religious beliefs. While this victory is and should be celebrated and will most likely act as a landmark case in securing the religious liberties of Christians in the future, the fact that we so narrowly won makes me wonder what might have been had one Supreme Court Justice thought differently. What might have been is not pretty.
Before we consider the implications of the case had it gone the other direction, we must ask the question: What do religious liberty and freedom entail? What does it mean to have religious freedom? According to Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.
A common misconception in the freedom of religion debate is that religious liberty only guarantees the right to worship as one wants without fear of being persecuted or prevented from doing so. But religion among its many definitions speaks of “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” (emphasis own). So we are guaranteed our freedom not only in worship but in “observance, practice, and teaching”, which for religious people comes from their religion’s authoritative guide (Christian Bible, Muslim Quran, Hindu Bhagavad Gita, etc…). In fact, one could also argue that religious observance of the Bible and its ethical guidelines are a form of worship. So for many Christians, Catholics, and Jews, the HHS mandate would have forced them to participate in providing a drug that they believe takes the life a defenseless unborn human person who has already been conceived and violates Scripture’s teaching on life in the womb and God’s involvement in that process (Luke 1:15, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 22:10, Psalm 139:13-16, Galatians 1:15, Exodus 21:22-25). That is the key in understanding this debate and lawsuit. While most Catholics are opposed to all forms of contraceptives, there is a reason why Hobby Lobby and other faith-based institutions weren’t up in arms about the condoms and diaphragms which Obamacare’s HHS mandate also provides since those are preventative measures taken during sex and before conception occurs. Hobby Lobby opposes the use of such abortifacient contraceptives due to their belief that life begins at conception and that human life at all stages is valuable in God’s eyes and deserving of protection.
So where does that leave us? If there is a direct link between what Scripture teaches and David Green’s pro-life beliefs that do not allow him to provide his employees with abortifacient contraceptives, then four of the nine supreme court justices believe that they are entitled to prevent him from “manifesting his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.” Had one Supreme Court Justice thought differently, the first purpose on which the United States of America was founded would have been abandoned. While this lawsuit debate has often turned into a debate regarding the morality of abortion and women’s access to “reproductive healthcare,” it is first and foremost an issue of religious liberties and whether or not US citizens have the freedom to live their lives on a day-to-day basis in accordance with the religion they have subscribed to. Denying David Green and others that freedom would have delivered a fatal blow to the basic freedom so many other countries envy us for and which our founders set out to establish.
So what might have been? A complete breaking down of this nation’s first freedom and a slippery slope of denying any person any type of religious freedom that doesn’t happen to also coincide with the beliefs of the Supreme Court or presiding powers that would decide such cases. Let’s be honest and point out the elephant in the room. All four of the Supreme Court Justices who voted against Hobby Lobby are all pro-choice and are champions of “women’s rights;” for them this is an issue of “reproductive freedom,” not religious freedom. Such a slippery slope may seem far-fetched, and it certainly wouldn’t happen overnight, but had the Supreme Court ruled differently on this case, what would have kept them from denying Christians and other religious people any other number of religious rights that they disagreed with? The fact that Hobby Lobby and others barely secured a right that is so fundamental and intrinsic to the foundation of our nation is scary and it’s exactly what might have been. This should be a reminder to all of us that we have a lot of work to do in reminding our nation of their job to uphold the rights of the people to “have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.” If we lose that right, it may be a quick journey to losing all others.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]