One Law

[Editorial]

United under a common law that idea goes back all the way back in history, the ancient Greeks had a common code of laws. We have strived over the generations to have the law applied to noble and commoner alike, no matter your race, no matter your social economic status, not matter your sexual orientation or gender identity, no matter your religion you will all be treated equally under the law, that was our goal… until now.

A number of Supreme Court ruling have muddled the separation of church and state, the most recent was allowing a coach to prey on the football field even though team members felt pressured to prey with for fear of not getting time in the game.

Then there are cases where people didn’t have to follow non-discrimination laws because it was “against their religion.” Then we have a case this fall as reported by the Colorado Sun,

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear the case filed by Lorie Smith, a Denver-based evangelical Christian web designer, who wants to expand her business 303 Creative to include wedding websites but because she opposes same-sex marriage, she does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings. She also wants to include a message on her website to explain her decision not to. Under Colorado law, public businesses are prohibited from discriminating against gay people and declaring their intent to do so.

The bigger question is can you be exempt from a neutral law that isn’t religiously biased? There has long been an established test on whether a law interferes with “religious freedom” called the Lemon Test*. The question is will this court throw out the test for a religiously neutral law and allow people to ignore the laws?

Another blow to a unified legal system came with the case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia where City of Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because of its policy of not licensing same-sex couples to be foster parents. In the case the Catholic Social Service signed a contract with the city and part of the contract had a non-discrimination clause which prohibited discriminating against LGBTQ+ families.

For me I think the most important part of the Supreme Court ruling was fact that they signed a contract with the non-discrimination clause in the contract. They didn’t protest before the signing about the clause but after! To me a lay person it seems like the court ruling is that you can ignore a contract that you signed by claiming a religious exemption.

Then we have healthcare.

More doctors are refusing to treat patients because of the doctor’s religious beliefs. Heath Affairs reported…

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot enforce certain interpretations of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against the religious plaintiffs in a case known as Franciscan Alliance.

In other words, a religiously neutral policy can now be exempt from the law.

Here in Connecticut the state is negotiating with Catholic hospitals to buy out a hospital in the northeastern part of the state, the state is saying that they cannot buy out the only hospital in the northeastern part of the state unless they provide abortion services and trans healthcare. The Catholic hospital chain is saying that it is against their religious-beliefs! My guess that it will go up to the Supreme Court, will the court deny vital healthcare to a segment of Connecticut?

A number of religions have sued over the abortion bans claiming that the ban violates their “religious freedom” and what about those individuals who hold a belief that life begins at the first breath that a baby takes? Will their beliefs be recognized or will you have to be a member of a “recognized” religion?

And then we have politicians who are embracing the Christian nationalism against the “Godless Left.”

Christians against Christian nationalism say the ideology distorts both American and Christian values
Business Insider
By Kelsey Vlamis
September 4, 2022


Proponents of Christian nationalism have suggested those expressing concerns about the ideology are simply the "godless left," but tens of thousands of Christians maintain the concept directly defies the teachings of their faith.

Christian groups launched a campaign in 2019 aimed at denouncing Christian nationalism — the belief that the US and Christianity are intrinsically linked and therefore the religion should have a privileged position in American society and government.

[…]

Christian nationalists also believe that the government should declare the US a Christian nation, advocate for Christian values, and return prayer to public schools.

But these ideals "create this second-class status for our neighbors who aren't Christian," Tyler said — and sends the message that in order to be a true American you have to be a Christian.

And they are tying patriotism to Christianity, if you are not Christian then you can’t be patriot.

We need other Christians to speak out against Christian nationalism and their golden idol, your silence is tacit approval. You must speak out against nationalism! We cannot because we will be labeled "Godless" it is you Christians that must show them that they are wrong.

To paraphrase Harvey Milk,

...“Christian” brothers and sisters,…You must “speak” out. Come out… to your parents… I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! “Speak” out to your relatives… come out to your friends… if indeed they are your friends. “Speak” out to your neighbors… to your fellow workers… to the people who work where you eat and shop… come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions.

Will we maintain a nation of one set of laws or will we become a Christian theocracy with two sets of laws and one religion?

[/Editorial]

*The Lemon Test:

The Supreme Court often uses the three-pronged Lemon test when it evaluates whether a law or governmental activity violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Establishment of religion cases tend to involve government aid to religion, such as aid to parochial schools, or the introduction of religious observances into the public sector, such as school prayer. The Court measures the aid or program against the prongs of the test.