Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Discrimination, and the First Amendment

The US Supreme Court recently upheld Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. The crafts store chain had charged that the Affordable Care Act required them to violate their faith by requiring them to provide insurance to their employees covering birth control and anti-abortive pills.

However, many complained that this decision provided Hobby Lobby and others with a license to discriminate. In an interview with Katie Couric, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamented:

• "I certainly respect the belief of the Hobby Lobby owners. On the other hand, they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women."

Ginsburg didn’t explicitly claim that the decision granted employers the right to discriminate. However, she claimed something more extreme - that the decision granted Hobby Lobby the “right to foist that belief on… women.” Does it?

The Hobby Lobby (HL) owners have a constitutional right to live according to their religious faith. While some have claimed that such guarantees do not apply to businesses, others have pointed out that if these guarantees apply only to our private lives, they are useless, meaningless, and the First Amendment is just a waste of ink.

It is unclear how Hobby Lobby’s rights “foist [their] belief… on women” any more than the Affordable Care Act does so. Rather, isn’t Ginsburg foisting her beliefs on the entire nation! By simply not providing insurance that would cover birth control, it is hard to see how HL is coercing anyone to believe in a certain way.

All laws discriminate. They either prescribe or proscribe certain behaviors. If this is so, then the more appropriate question is this – “Which laws discriminate in a needful way and which don’t.”  Is coercing employers to provide birth control insurance absolutely needful?”

We respect business owners’ rights to discriminate all the time. Many stores have signs reading, “No shoes or shirt; no service!” We respect that and don’t haul the shop-owner into court for discriminating. Why the double-standard when it comes to Christians refusing to partake in what they regard as sinful!

Hobby Lobby has not been given the right to discriminate. Women never had the right to require these drugs from their employers. HL had withdrawn no privilege. Following Ginsburg’s logic, all employers had formerly exercised discrimination – the foisting of their beliefs by not providing for birth control. This is ludicrous. Besides, HL has not been given the right to forbid their employees from purchasing such drugs. If this had been the case, Ginsburg would have had a basis for her argument. Ironically, it is Ginsburg who discriminates against HL!

A government that wants to win the allegiance of the governed must provide guarantees against unreasonable encroachments. The USA had thrived by virtue of the belief that government should respect freedom as long as it did not seriously impinge upon the public good. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most un-Christian Father to this effect:

• “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” It follows therefrom that mankind should do all that it can to keep minds unshackled and un-coerced. Let us consider, Jefferson noted, that if an all wise and powerful God restrained himself from coercing either the bodies or the minds of men and women, how utterly absurd it must be for “fallible and uninspired men” to arrogate to themselves the right to exercise “dominion over the faith of others…Be it enacted,” therefore, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” One will suffer in no way for his or her religious opinions; on the contrary, all persons “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” And whatever their opinions, this will in no way affect their citizenship or their rights. (A Religious History of America, 119).

Ginsburg’s disdain for the free exercise of religion is at variance with the sentiments expressed by Jefferson. For almost two centuries, our nation honored these very sentiments. For this reason, the Supreme Court was reluctant to enforce conformity, even when it would come at a great cost to the nation. It deemed that a dissenter of religious conscience could opt from fighting for his nation. The Court and the nation rightly understood that compelling conformity in non-essential areas would breed alienation, contempt, and disdain for authority. In contrast to this, the Affordable Care Act would have compelled people of conscience to violate their conscience.

Must our freedom of religion be safeguarded? Is it essential to the well-being of this nation? Clearly, Justice Ginsburg doesn’t think so. However, in his 1796 Farewell Address, the beloved George Washington reiterated this broadly accepted sentiment:

• Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty, 112)

According to Washington and the vast majority of the Founding Fathers, morality could not prevail without the belief in God. If this is so, should not our freedom of religion be safeguarded?

If you Believe in Biblical Fundamentals, you are Mentally Ill!

Every day seems to bring us closer to the implementation of one State religion - a monolithic secular one. Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, said that soon society will be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illness. She informed The Times of London:

• "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated. Someone who has for example become radicalized to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance."

We are progressing quickly from a high regard for religious conviction – even from the view that it’s essential for democracy - and the First Amendment guarantees to religion as a form of mental illness. And if we are mentally ill and deemed destructive to society – already, we are demeaned as “bigots,” “haters,” and those who deprive others of their civil rights – then why not medicate us, forcibly treat our mental disease, or just put us away as the media has already done!

This raises an interesting question: “Who is to decide who’s mentally ill?” If the Democrats decide, then it is the Republicans who are mentally ill and need to be silenced. If the gays are to decide, then everyone who is opposed to their agenda is mentally ill. If the atheists are to decide, then all people of a traditional religion are mentally ill.

Taylor is not limiting her comments to Jihadists:

• "I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults. I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness. In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm."

We are becoming very intolerant even as we pride ourselves as the quintessence of tolerance. Are these beliefs really “very harmful?” Taylor is not simply talking about parents who send their kids to the hospital, but of any corporal punishment. In contrast, many express thanks to their parents for the firm discipline – even a good whack to the butt – they received.

Perhaps Taylor might have a case if she could statistically demonstrate how the termination of school corporal punishment has produced better schools and students, but she can’t. What then does she base her “very harmful” assessment on? Perhaps nothing more than the permissive, secular religion of today!

A Response to an Atheist who would Like to See the Secular Government Impose Moral Uniformity

You correctly reported that,

• The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted 51-48 to table a measure by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would have allowed employers and health insurance providers to exclude any coverage that they deem immoral or contrary to their religious beliefs.

However, you congratulate the:

• Concerned secularists, and the Center for Inquiry, which has worked hard to protect health care from religious control.

However, I think that this is a mis-charaterization. We are all trying to influence legislation, even the secularists, as you aptly point out. It is far from a matter of “religious control.” If anything, we are seeking First Amendment protections against secular government control and the freedom to exercise our own conscience without imposition secular values.

I think that your next statement is also a mis-characterization:

• Blunt amendment would have effectively allowed employers and health insurance providers to impose their religious beliefs on employees and recipients.

The freedom to choose our own insurance coverage does not represent an imposition of our “religious beliefs on employees and recipients.” Potential employees are always free to seek employment according to the insurance coverage that they deem important. This has always been the case. Different employers have offered different coverage, and this has always been deemed acceptable. Why do you insist that the government must impose uniformity?

You lament that if religious employers have their way,

• This could have left millions of Americans -- including our most vulnerable citizens, and pregnant women -- without essential and preventative health coverage.

I find it odd that you would deem the inclusion of abortive drugs would protect the “vulnerable… such as babies.” If you are truly concerned about the vulnerable, perhaps you should reconsider requiring the religious to provide such drugs?

You add that the Blunt amendment,

• Would have stripped Americans of their right to make their own health decisions, and placed them at the whim of someone else's religious beliefs.

I fail to understand why you are so concerned about the “right” of the former while you are entirely insensitive to the right of the latter group. If you think that the one group should have that freedom, why do you deny it to the latter, who you describe as exercising “the whim of [their] religious beliefs?

This characterization is needlessly dismissive. It can be turned around in terms of “the whim of secular religious belief.” Why is your position less whimsical than mine?