FIC Blog

 

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. – Edmund Burke 

While legislation may circumscribe the boundaries of our actions, it is beyond the legitimate reach of government to regulate our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. In this sense, there is an inextricable link between our “freedom of thought” and “freedom of religion”. And it is for this reason that our Federal Constitution guarantees within the First Amendment that laws may not be made to interfere with religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Likewise, the United Nations acknowledges in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” 

I’ve been wondering lately, why is it that people are tending to view religious freedom as something evermore narrow? Is that freedom only for the clergy? Is it only applicable when practiced in a certain building, or upon a certain day and time? Yet as I read the text of the First Amendment, I can find no such limitations. The freedom is guaranteed for all citizens, at all places and times. It is for everyone, 24×7. 

We used to understand as a society that it is morally wrong to compel someone to act in a manner contrary to their conscience. (We used to understand a lot more about morality, but I digress). Nations have recognized that individuals may acquire a valid status as “conscientious objectors”, and thereby refuse to participate in armed military service. In the wake of Roe v. Wade, during the 1970s, laws were formalized at the Federal and State level to exempt health care providers from being compelled to facilitate abortion or sterilization procedures when those actions “would be contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions”.

In fact, it is often a hallmark sign of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes – like the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – when the people’s freedom of conscience is suppressed. In contrast with such darkness, one of the qualities that have made America great has been its ability to peacefully incorporate a diversity of viewpoints, without trampling upon an individual’s right to the liberty of their own conscience. Each person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Moreover, it is imperative that government should find an equitable balance between the interests of society and the interests of individuals when it seeks to compel someone to action that is contrary to that person’s conscience. 

Finding that delicate balance between our collective and individual interests can be tricky. Probably few among us are thrilled to pay our taxes, particularly when we disagree with how the money is being spent, but conscience or not we are all compelled to pay. The key factor in such cases tends to be whether there is a “compelling interest” that cannot reasonably be satisfied through some other means. Indeed, our own state’s laws (CGS 52-571b) provide that the government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion – even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability – unless the state both demonstrates a compelling governmental interest and enacts the least restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. 

What this seems to suggest is that when there are reasonable alternatives that might resolve a particular concern or issue, we should tend to favor those that place the least burden upon an individual’s liberty. In essence, government should seek to minimize its footprint upon our freedom of conscience. If only our elected representatives would take this principle to heart, perhaps then we could all live in greater peace and harmony.