Who could possibly want to fight against more religious
freedom? That is a question that Colorado
and Florida
are bringing to the public this coming elections season. The questions are not the same, but
considering the timing it is likely that they are both responses to the debate
over contraceptives that we have spent so much time discussing over the last
few weeks.
In Florida the proposed amendment will repeal the law that
forbids the government from providing financing to religious
organizations. The opposition worries that
this will open the door to more voucher programs sending students to parochial
schools instead of public schools. In Colorado
the proposal is vaguer. It simply seems
to restate principals from the constitution.
The proposed extra text can be found here. It mostly changes things I believe by adding
religious organization to the clause which is part of what is being debated
when it comes to the issue of religious freedom. Do organizations have rights, or is it simply
a matter of individuals. The issue that
this is likely responding to makes it even more complicated since the
individuals that make up the organization seem to have a difference of opinion
from the organization itself.
Was the wording of our constitution meant to protect
religious organizations or just individuals in their personal belief? It is a question that is fraught with a lot
of baggage. The religion that many
Americans follow is one that is centered on individual choice and
interpretation, but that is not the way with all religions. By favoring a legal system that favors the
individual over the organizations that they may belong to are we in fact
favoring a certain type of religion?
I agree that the rights of the individual are what this
country is built on and not the rights of organizations, but I do not think
that that means that the organizations have to be completely stripped of
rights. I think that the Catholic Church
has the right to disagree with birth control and I think that parishioners have
the right to leave the church if they disagree with it. I also think that if they are an employer
then they should follow the same laws as other employers and receive the same benefits. By this token I actually do not see a problem
with the proposal in Florida. I think
allowing religious organizations the same rights to government money that
nonreligious organizations receive is completely constitutional. I agree with the opposition that it could
lead to more voucher programs providing money to parochial schools, but that
was already held up as constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons. The one in Colorado is a little more
troubling, but not enough that I disagree on just the surface. I think it leaves too little space for the government
to decide that the rights of the individuals or the benefit of the people
around the organization trumps their rights.
Like so many things with the interaction between religion and law it is
difficult to see just what the effects of either of these initiatives will be
if they make it to law.
No comments:
Post a Comment