Indiana and beyond

            No debate of importance should happen without great thought and great struggle.

            Thus, if I do this right, I will make everyone who reads this believe I agree with them. If I do this right, I will make everyone who reads this believe I’m against them.

            That’s the middle ground I’ve staked out.

            There are 19 states in the country with “religious freedom” laws. There is a 22-year-old federal law that has much of the same language.

            So why has Indiana’s passage of such a law become a firestorm of controversy? Some of it is timing, but not all.

            Supporters of the Indiana “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” say it is modeled on the federal RFRA, which was introduced as a Senate bill by Ted Kennedy 22 years ago. The federal law was passed by a near unanimous vote in the Senate and by a unanimous vote in the House. President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

            The Federal law applied to all religions, but it was most pertinent to Native American religions – and others such as the Amish – by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. But by the time that law was three years old, already it was found that Jewish, Muslim and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., made up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion.

            And, perhaps most importantly, it was found that the RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to states. Thus, states began over time to pass their own RFRAs.

            Supporters of the Indiana law point out that it does not mention, much less target, LGBT people.

            However, and it is a big ol’ honking however, there is no doubt in my mind that the new effort to pass state RFRAs is almost entirely a reaction to the very much growing gay-rights movement, including the increasing acceptance and reality of same-sex marriage.

            Friends, there is no doubt that we are at a crossroads here. Everything changed in this debate without much of a notice when Hobby Lobby won its case in the Supreme Court last year. Oh, there were some protesters holding signs, as there always seem to be, but mostly it passed without near the uproar that Indiana’s law passage has had.

            The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that two for-profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees “pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.” Hobby Lobby and its owners the Green family used the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in its defense.

            When that occurred, state legislatures began to rush to write their own RFRAs. Arkansas passed one this past week, as well, though it hasn’t been signed yet.

            It is without question an emotional issue. It would seem to me that thoughtful people would think for a moment what it would mean if they were part of the LGBT community, or conversely if one was a believing Christian who is struggling with what scripture surely seems to say.

            But taking the emotion out of the discussion for a moment, I note that University of Arkansas Little-Rock law professor says, “The U.S. protects religious liberty; no one is forced to join a church, no one is punished for attending or not attending church. Religious organizations enjoy broad freedoms to meet, speak, advocate and practice their religions. In a plural, democratic society, however, individuals don’t have the right to exempt themselves from the laws that apply to all of us.”

            In other words, religious freedom is protected. Is and has been protected. It isn’t going away. But it can’t and must not be a sword by which civil rights heads are lifted.

            I feel like even in my own little blogosphere I must give some sort of opinion on this very divisive subject or else why am I a religion columnist.

            I understand the difficulties on the “right” when, for example, someone is forced by law to bake a wedding cake for two persons in the LGBT community who are getting married in a state in which that is lawful. I understand the problem if the bakers have deeply held religious views. I really do. For some this is about the validity of the Bible, and what it appears to say about homosexuality. I get that very much.

            I also, as best I can, understand the tragedy of being a part of the LGBT community and being discriminated against simply because of who I am, and let no one think that the above example isn’t discrimination if you are on that side of the issue.

            Further, if one can not bake that cake for those two persons, then who else might that cake not be baked for? That seems to me to be the issue above all.

            Whenever there is a divisive subject, someone’s beliefs are going to be discriminated against.

            It was that way in the debate over slavery.

            It was that way in the debate over women’s rights.

            It was that way in the debate over African-American civil rights in the 50s and 60s.

            It is that way today both in the LGBT community and the sincere, loving Christian community.

            It is.

            But, for me in this instance, it comes down to the law. And the laws in most states that have written RFRA laws protect the LGBT community from discrimination, as well.

            Indiana does not. It must. I strongly suspect it will, soon.

            I believe Indiana is wrong, and business owners without true deeply held convictions could manipulate the law any way they so choose in the same way that persons with deeply held convictions that the Bible condoned slavery made that argument.

            In our nation, to be our nation, we must protect everyone’s rights. That’s who we are at our best. I pray that both sides remember that. Still, someone has just as much right to believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin without someone calling that person a hater as someone else has the right to believe the Bible is a bunch of hokey. Someone can pray in school if it is student led, and can pray to whomever they want. That’s what this nation was built on, and it hasn’t changed. Name calling on either side needs to stop. We are, our should be, better than that.

            We have the right to worship the way we so choose. We always have had that right, and Christian “religion” need not be restored. It hasn’t gone away. Both sides need to admit that, and both sides need to back away and take a breath.