Posted on May 6, 2019
Opinion | We Are Taking Religious Freedom Too Far
1.41K
17
7
5
5
0
"In 1976 I left a small Catholic grammar school, where we prayed aloud four times a day, to attend a large public high school where we didn’t pray aloud at all. The United States Supreme Court had banned school-sponsored prayer in 1962, but nobody was keeping me from praying. I prayed for help on my biology test. I prayed for the red-haired boy in Alabama History to smile at me, and I gave a little prayer of thanksgiving when he did. I offered up silent prayers of astonishment and silent prayers of gratitude and silent prayers for peace — peace for my own agitated heart and peace for the whole agitated world. I prayed all day long, and no one in my public school had any idea I was praying at all.
It has been decades since I prayed my way through high school, but all across the red states, conservative Christians are still challenging that 1962 decision, constantly pushing the limits of what “student-led” prayer in public school, which the ruling permits, really means. Earlier this year, a 17-year-old student in Louisiana sued her school district for beginning the day with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Technically a student leads the prayer. In reality the student reads from a printout that school officials set beside the microphone.
Conservative Christians are forever trying to inject their personal religious beliefs into the public sphere. Here in Tennessee, the owner of a small-town bakery just outside Nashville recently reneged on an agreement to bake a wedding cake because the wedding in question involved two brides and no grooms. “I really enjoyed our time together and I truly wish you the best,” the shop owner texted one of the brides after the cake-tasting, “but after realizing that your union will be of the same sex, I cannot with my spiritual conviction and beliefs, do your cake!” Nevertheless, she added, “I do love you in the Lord!”
It would be almost funny if it weren’t so unfair. It’s illegal for a store owner to discriminate against customers because they happen to belong to a group against which the shopkeeper harbors a personal prejudice. It’s illegal for a racist to open a restaurant that serves only white people. Prejudice cloaked in the robes of religious faith should follow the same precedent".
It has been decades since I prayed my way through high school, but all across the red states, conservative Christians are still challenging that 1962 decision, constantly pushing the limits of what “student-led” prayer in public school, which the ruling permits, really means. Earlier this year, a 17-year-old student in Louisiana sued her school district for beginning the day with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Technically a student leads the prayer. In reality the student reads from a printout that school officials set beside the microphone.
Conservative Christians are forever trying to inject their personal religious beliefs into the public sphere. Here in Tennessee, the owner of a small-town bakery just outside Nashville recently reneged on an agreement to bake a wedding cake because the wedding in question involved two brides and no grooms. “I really enjoyed our time together and I truly wish you the best,” the shop owner texted one of the brides after the cake-tasting, “but after realizing that your union will be of the same sex, I cannot with my spiritual conviction and beliefs, do your cake!” Nevertheless, she added, “I do love you in the Lord!”
It would be almost funny if it weren’t so unfair. It’s illegal for a store owner to discriminate against customers because they happen to belong to a group against which the shopkeeper harbors a personal prejudice. It’s illegal for a racist to open a restaurant that serves only white people. Prejudice cloaked in the robes of religious faith should follow the same precedent".
Opinion | We Are Taking Religious Freedom Too Far
Posted from nytimes.com
Religion
LGBTQ+
Christianity
Orthodox Judaism
Philosophy
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Just my two cents, but no rights are absolute, even those enshrined in the constitution. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't own a firearm if you're a convicted felon, etc. Being religious shouldn't exempt you from having to treat other people equally.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This is a good post Chip. You continue to amaze me. I find your post inspiring and always thought provoking. So where is the Red Haired Boy?
(2)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
SCPO Morris Ramsey Shhh, Shhh Senior, You're Giving Away My Secret Weapon! I talk about My German Prussian Heritage but The Mean Orneriness is Just as Much My Red Haired Scottish Heritage. LOL! One Look at Family Pictures Kind of Gives it away. My Cousins, My Sister, Granny Sandy, My Children. All Red Haired Demons! Yeah they are Clan Dawes, Davis, Davidson. (Granny Sandy is a Scott which Just Makes it Worse).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
LCDR Joshua Gillespie Sure Wish I Knew. All I Can Do is Fight for the Oppressed.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Well, let's talk a bit about "oppression". Everyone on RP knows I'm pretty vocal about being a person of faith. I've had some folks here say rather unflattering things about my beliefs... and that's alright; their disagreement doesn't represent "oppression" to my mind. I've lived among Muslims, and didn't find their prayers "oppressive"; I even joined them once or twice. I've had neighbors who were homosexual. I may believe that their chosen lifestyle is sinful... but again, their presence wasn't "oppressive" to me . "Oppression" isn't disagreeing with someone, or refusing to support, condone, or accommodate their choices... it's forcing someone to comply with something beyond the "reasonable" standard of law. If law is ever used to "force" a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, or heck.. a Jedi, to behave in a manner contrary to their religion, then we're violating the 1st Amendment... it's as simple as that. Those who suggest that laws prohibiting "religious" practices that go against established law (say, ritual sacrifice or "honor" killing) establish a precedent for forcing a business owner to do "a", or a public official to do "b", are exposing an important and fragile compromise. My fear is that we're moving towards actual oppression of religion based on an ever expanding sense of "fairness".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google