Shrinking the "Public Square"

Good For All of Us

The US Supreme Court has made a decision in recent days that is significant for maintaining religious liberty in the United States.  We have blogged previously (here, here, here, here, and here) about the "Hobby Lobby" case where a private company, owned by Christians, refused to comply with the Federal Government's Diktat that it must pay for abortifacient drugs for its staff.  The Court has ruled that the Hobby Lobby owners do indeed have the right to apply their religious beliefs and conscience to their business and have upheld their freedom-of-conscience right to refuse to pay for abortifacient drugs to secure abortions for any staff that might seek them. 

The Obama administration has argued that churches (as employers) could legitimately be exempted from its Diktats on the ground of religious liberty--but not businesses because they were not religious organisations.  To Christians, who believe that all of one's property--as an extension of one's life and conscience--must be conformed to Christ's lordly reign, this was a terrible overreach by the government.  The State was presuming to declare that only certain rarefied parts of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could enjoy religious freedom.  To Christians, this was a claim in direct contravention of the command of our Sovereign Lord that whatever we do, even the most mundane things, such as eating and drinking, are all to be done to the glory of God.  (I Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17; I Peter 4: 11,12). 

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Hobby Lobby, which is a tremendous boon to Christians, and all people, in fact.  Pete Kasperowicz of Breitbart News reviews the case:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Obamacare cannot force companies to pay for emergency contraceptive coverage for their employees that could lead to abortions, in violation of their religious beliefs.  The 5-4 ruling delivered a huge victory to conservatives who have worked for years to scale back the various mandates of the controversial healthcare law.

The Court decided that Obamacare cannot be used to require for-profit, closely held companies to provide certain birth control drugs and devices — such as morning after pills — that could cause abortion.  The case was brought by Hobby Lobby, a Oklahoma-based retail chain owned by the Green family. The Greens said they are willing to cover 16 of the 20 birth control methods mandated by Obamacare to its employees, but not four others because the risk of abortion goes against their religious beliefs.

The company argued before the Court that the Obamacare mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which says the government cannot place burdens on the exercise of freedom of religion.

Thus, the Court has ruled not in terms of the more general human right of liberty of conscience, but more narrowly: the Government, said the Supreme Court, violated a specific law prohibiting the government from restricting freedom of religion. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the government could pay for this coverage if it wants to make it available, but cannot compel a company to do so.

Douglas Wilson reflects upon the decision:

When it comes to appointments to the Supremes, there is supposed to be — as all pretend — no litmus test to be applied. There actually is one, however, and the Democrats do a much better job reading the results of said litmus tests. Their appointees turn out true blue, for the most part, while the Republican appointments are hit and miss.

Nevertheless, elections matter, and nevertheless, who makes the appointments matters also. In the Hobby Lobby case just handed down, a significant protection for our religious liberties was kept intact, and here is the breakout.

Voting for the majority on this case were the Republican appointees:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (George W. Bush)
Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan)
Anthony M. Kennedy (Ronald Reagan)
Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush)
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. (George W. Bush)

In the dissent, we find all the Democrat appointees:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Bill Clinton)
Stephen G. Breyer (Bill Clinton
Sonia Sotomayor (Barack Obama)
Elena Kagan (Barack Obama)

I am not withdrawing prior criticisms of the Republican appointees, particularly on issues like abortion. They should have done a lot better than they have. At the same time, it is a matter of grateful astonishment to me that we have had almost six years of Obama, and we still have a Court capable of a decision like this one. It is quite possible that we will make it through the next two years of Obama’s tenure without him being able to move the Court leftward at all. I am very grateful to God.

There is an equity in such issues which will flow out to the Anglo-Saxon Western countries in general (Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand).  All these countries draw to some upon the general equity of the law and the courts in each other's jurisdictions when interpreting statutes.  It will now be more difficult to claim that one's religion only has protected status when it involves practice in one's home and head.   The notion of an enforced religious neutrality in a vast Habermasian public square just got trimmed down a bit.