“Religious freedom”, it’s the current popular buzz-phrase and movement by the Mormon church and other religions. They cry out for it as though it is something deserved and something denied them. But what IS religious freedom? What do the religions actually want and do they deserve it?

Many try to portray “religious freedom” as the ability to worship as they will without interference. But this doesn’t feel like what it means in action. It feels more like they want the ability to say what they want when they want without any criticism. If feels like they want a government that officially supports their beliefs while suppressing others. You see this when they openly denigrate anyone with opposing beliefs and ideals and then complain when those others accuse them of bigotry. You see this when states like Idaho try to declare their state to be officially christian. It is seen when Christians are all about having the ten commandments posted on government property, but freak out if any other religion wants to also put up idols sacred to them.

Religions already have “religious freedom”. They are able to worship how, where, and what they may so long as it does not endanger others. So what more do they seek exactly? Do they want the ability to say what they want without reprisal or contradiction? Do they want their religious beliefs to be enshrined in law? Whatever it is they want, they don’t seem to want all religions to be afforded the same latitude. Imagine how many Christians and particularly the right-wing extremists would react if we had an openly practicing Muslim president, let alone a president they currently lambaste as a Muslim sympathizer. Look at how Idaho lawmakers acted when a guest Hindu chaplain offered a prayer in session, they actually refused to attend. These don’t look like the actions of people who want religious freedom. They look like the actions of people who want a theocracy.

The question really is however, does religion deserve any protection at all? I would submit to you that religion deserves no protection that is not afforded to any other group or individual. In fact, from a non-religious point of view they’re lucky they’re given any leeway at all. As a society we have no problem incarcerating people who are mentally unsound, we have no problem holding people back in school who aren’t learning enough, we have no problem attacking other parties and organizations for things we don’t agree with, but for some reason we still protect religious thought, even the most crazy or blatantly wrong ones. From a non-religious perspective, there really is no reason to respect religions any more than any other organization.

Why are states making laws to protect the exercise of religion specifically? Why is it that the government can’t put any undue burden upon the exercise of religion, instead of the government can’t put any undue burden upon the exercise of free will. Specific acts and lines of thought should be criticized on their own merit, not whether someone claims they have religious reasons.

I have never heard an argument for putting special protections around religion that doesn’t fall in to one of two categories. First, some reason that assumes their religion is true. Second, “it’s tradition”. On the first, just because you believe your religion is true, does not mean it is. You have no more right to the protection of your thoughts than the guy down in the mental institution who insists he was abducted by aliens. You have no more proof of your version of god than the mental patient has of being abducted. You simply cannot base laws on “because my version of god said so”. On the second point, tradition is a terrible reason to ensure that ANYTHING keeps going. Tradition boils down to “because it has been, it should be”. This is simply not true and as seen through history is not sufficient reason to continue anything. Two of the best examples would be slavery and women and blacks as property. These things have both gone on for thousands of years and were rightly abandoned in any civilized countries. So no, just because something has been, doesn’t mean it should be. Religion should survive on its own merit, not because it’s religion.

The only area that I haven’t been able to wholly make up my mind on with the whole topic of “religious freedom” regards the providing of services. I don’t think a company should be forced to cater for a gay wedding if they are opposed to gay weddings, I don’t think a person should be forced to bake a cake espousing ideals they are absolutely against. However I don’t think any doctor should ever be allowed to refuse medical services to any group of people that they would provide to anyone else. So somewhere in between lies a line. Where that line is I don’t know exactly but I think we will come to find where that line is as we go forward as a society. What I am sure on, is that the line should have absolutely nothing to do with whether religion wants it there or not, it should be drawn at the place that is best for society.

Each act should be judged on its own merit and context, not whether it is religious in origin or not. To give religion any special protection that is not given to any organization means that we are in fact endorsing religion. Endorse charity, love, kindness, morality, and all good things, but endorse them because they are good, not because they are religious. Shun evil, hate, meanness, immorality and all bad things, but shun them because they are bad, not because they aren’t religious.

Edit: Clarified a couple things and changed some of the more charged wording.