The article mentions RFRA as being noncontroversial. That’s the problem. It should have been very controversial. The reason is because of what this article also says. The author writes that RFRA “requires the government to meet a higher-than-normal standard in regulating religious organizations.” That is the problem with it. The religion clauses of the Constitution are meant to make sure that believers and nonbelievers are equal. Any law that privileges only religious objectors but no one else violates this equality principle.
There are two students in a public high school, which is a government institution so the First Amendment applies. They are both taking a biology class. There is an assignment to dissect frogs. One student objects to doing so because of a religious based objection. The other objects to doing so based on a secular philosophical objection. If only the student with the religious concern is granted an exemption, there is a constitutional violation of the rights of the other objecting student.
The trouble is that many religious advocates want special legal privileging of only the religious. If we are to have a truly equal society in keeping with the true intent of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, atheists must have no fewer rights than religious believers. Any law like RFRA that gives special exemptions, privileges, and protections to only the religious, in a way not enjoyed by anyone else, violates this principle of government neutrality in matters of religion.
Bills like this are a model we should use more frequently. I'd love to trade conservatives, say, increased immigration enforcement and border security for a national abortion law (to pick one crude example). As Mr. Rauch noted, our system was designed to require compromise.
Between this and infrastructure, the Biden Administration had done surprisingly well at bipartisan bills. Maybe there's something to be said for Washington experience.
The article mentions RFRA as being noncontroversial. That’s the problem. It should have been very controversial. The reason is because of what this article also says. The author writes that RFRA “requires the government to meet a higher-than-normal standard in regulating religious organizations.” That is the problem with it. The religion clauses of the Constitution are meant to make sure that believers and nonbelievers are equal. Any law that privileges only religious objectors but no one else violates this equality principle.
There are two students in a public high school, which is a government institution so the First Amendment applies. They are both taking a biology class. There is an assignment to dissect frogs. One student objects to doing so because of a religious based objection. The other objects to doing so based on a secular philosophical objection. If only the student with the religious concern is granted an exemption, there is a constitutional violation of the rights of the other objecting student.
The trouble is that many religious advocates want special legal privileging of only the religious. If we are to have a truly equal society in keeping with the true intent of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, atheists must have no fewer rights than religious believers. Any law like RFRA that gives special exemptions, privileges, and protections to only the religious, in a way not enjoyed by anyone else, violates this principle of government neutrality in matters of religion.
Bills like this are a model we should use more frequently. I'd love to trade conservatives, say, increased immigration enforcement and border security for a national abortion law (to pick one crude example). As Mr. Rauch noted, our system was designed to require compromise.
Between this and infrastructure, the Biden Administration had done surprisingly well at bipartisan bills. Maybe there's something to be said for Washington experience.
Outstanding article in every way!