Friday, March 27, 2015

Compiling Some of My Previous Posts on “Religious Freedom”

Yesterday, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed into law the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). For my part, I’m ashamed that my state has passed this sort of license to discriminate. If it’s any sort of consolation (not much…), over the last day or two, I’ve heard quite a few people who are otherwise quite conservative in their politics and worldview express anger and disappointment at the passage of this law.

I hope to take some time in the next week or so to really dive into the text of RFRA, both to address some of the confusion and to discuss why I’m so opposed to the bill. Alas, time doesn’t permit me to write that post now. Nevertheless, for those interested, I thought I’d compile links to some of the posts that I’ve written in recent years on the subject of “religious freedom” and proposed laws similar to RFRA.

Using the Claim of “Religious Freedom” as a Weapon Without Considering What it Really Means

Thought Exercise on the Uses of the Cudgel of “Religious Freedom”

Paul Ryan and the Birth Control Brouhaha

Slippery Slope or Religious Freedom? Mutually Exclusive Arguments

The Birth Control Brouhaha

More on the Birth Control Brouhaha

I’m sure that I’ve addressed the issue one way or another in any of a host of other posts. But that should be a decent sampler.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


2 Comments:

At Saturday, March 28, 2015 11:14:00 AM , Anonymous Greg said...

I look forward to your post. I am more inclined to support the law, but that is in large part because I think many of the applications of the law that you fear are not permitted. There is a significant legal distinction between serving people who oppose your faith and being compelled to violate your faith in service to others. For example, a Muslim may hold that images of Mohammed are prohibited. If this Muslim owns a custom frame shop, he could refuse to frame such a picture based on his beliefs because he would be an active participant in the act he finds objectionable. But he could not refuse to sell that same customer framing supplies that he would use at home to frame that same picture. The result is the same in terms of the picture, but only in the first case does the faith of the frame shop owner come into play.

 
At Monday, March 30, 2015 10:04:00 AM , Blogger Reuben said...

I'm not as interested in this particular article as I am in knowing you are still around. I've missed your writing.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older