Religious Liberty Cuts Both Ways

Are the current actions of secular liberals - including the controversial HHS mandate - increasing the future risk of a dictatorial religious regime sometime in the American future?  Read on...

It is sometimes said that "when fascism comes to America, its symbol will be a cross draped in an American flag."  This is certainly as possible as any other strange scenario in human history.  Yet we must admit that this is one of the least likely forms of oppression which may be visited upon America as we know it.  To begin with, the historical and legal precedent of our nation is such that the notion of a religion controlling the state is quite foreign to our American way of life.  Our laws and customs reflect this clear distinction between religious influence and religious control.  Furthermore while the "cross and flag" image may be terrifying to secularists, it is generally employed by people who don't have experience with people of any strong religious persuasion.  The fact remains that the majority of mainstream religion in this country - including traditional Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and various orthodox Jewish and Christian groups - simply find the idea of their religions having control over the state as a highly distasteful idea.  Traditional Catholics, for instance, know enough of their own history to know that religious power over the state tends to end badly for everybody involved; it is not in the best interest of our religion to make it the master of any state.  The only "orthodox" exception to this norm comes from the Sharia Law of Islam, which is what makes Fundamentalist Islam a potential dangerous exception to America's otherwise successful religious plurality.

Finally, the first amendment establishes a clear barrier between the secular state and any religious organization.  This is for both the protection of the state, and the protection of any religion in question.  And here is where our current problem begins...  

Anybody capable of thinking past political slogans and painful (or downright falsified) personal testimonies knows that the current HHS mandate is a violent attack on the strong protections afforded by the first amendment.  That Catholic Bishops and their supporters are labeled as women haters becomes a patently absurd position when one considers the laughably low costs (contra the bordelo-like budget suggested by Sandra Fluke) of birth control.  Now consider that Title X of Obamacare will guarantee free birth control from any government clinic, and the leftist agenda should become clear.  This is not about protecting women, but rather an attempt to impose a total secular orthodoxy upon the realm of private belief, at the expense of the first amendment.

In order for the HHS mandate to stand in the Supreme Court, the state must argue via the Free Exercise Clause that there is a compelling state interest in forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception and abortificient drugs like the morning after pill.  Given that there is no "contraception crisis" in America, and that Obama's plans already provides this service via the state, we can only conclude this as a real attack on religious liberty in America.  The "war against women" slogan is only a smokescreen to divert attention from this painful truth.

While religious people (and constitutional scholars) are obviously up in arms about this blatant violation, non-religious types may feel very little panic, while more extremist secular types may secretly or even openly favor such a curtailing of "medieval" religious belief.  Bill Maher certainly isn't losing any sleep over the HHS mandate.

Yet the neutral should be quick to drop their "meh" attitude, while dedicated secularists should be alarmed at the legal implications of the HHS mandate.   Consider as there is no pressing state interest in enforcing the HHS mandate per the Free Exercise Clause, the forcing of this idea becomes an active erosion of the Church/State separation as defined in the First Amendment.  If this attack were somehow to be upheld in the US Supreme Court, we would be setting a dangerous legal precedent for the disregarding of the First Amendment.

While such a precedent may now be used to push an aggressively secular agenda, there is no reason that such a radical legal precedent could not be exploited by religious extremists as well. There could well be a time in the future where a strong and potentially negative religious voice comes to dominate life in America, and it could easily use the legal precedent set by the current secularist administration and their HHS mandate to justify an overstepping of bounds by religion into secular life.  

In short, the erosion of religious liberty by secularists sets up a scenario by which secular liberties can  one day be eroded by religionists.  It's not a pretty picture, and it distinctly shows why the First Amendment should not be tinkered with for something as historically inconsequential as Sandra Fluke's imaginary budget.

Secularists may call this alarmism by a threatened religious thinker, and they'd be right.  But they would be wrong to disregard the power of legal precedence in the halls of American Justice.  Secularists who once passed a controversial Roe v. Wade position now - scarcely 40 years later - use "legal precedence" to defend the normality of this law, an argument with the power to sway even some conservative judges who oppose their position.  As such, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the legal precedence set by Obama's abuse of the first amendment could not - in some 40 years time - be used by an aggressive and politically entrenched religious establishment to erode the rights of secular people in America.  

Consider that active enforcement of Sharia Law is a global agenda of Fundamentalist Islam (and one becoming quite entrenched in parts of the European Union), and even the most dedicated secularist should now be alarmed by the legal implications of this current administrations attack on the separation of Church and State.

We are a long way from the totalitarian "cross draped in a flag," yet the unconstitutional actions of this current administration make legal reality of such a situation more possible.  As such, this is not an issue about women's rights, religious rights, or a little pill.  It's a bi-partisan issue of a blatant disregard of our Constitution, and should be firmly opposed by both religious and secular citizens of our country.