Live and Let Live?
Should a corporation, a business person, a government employee or a medical provider refuse to provide a service based on personal religious grounds? Is this a workable plan, considering the broad spectrum of religious sensibilities and prohibitions in the world? Where do we draw the line?
2014 — the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the for-profit companies that filed suit: Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts and crafts stores, didn’t have to offer female employees all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives as part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without co-pays or deductibles under the law. The company had argued that several types of contraceptives violate their owners’ religious beliefs.
2015 — county clerk Kim Davis, an “Apostolic Christian” argued that her faith defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and refused to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. She said that by signing a marriage license for a gay couple she was violating a tenet of her religion. A U.S. District Court judge found Davis in contempt of court and jailed her for five days.
2018 — The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled that a Colorado baker could not be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding . The decision was a victory for Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake in Denver, who has said that his cakes are works of art and that requiring him to bake them for same-sex weddings would force him to express a view that violated his religious beliefs.
2019 — The Trump administration has moved to further protect clinicians who object to participating in abortions and other certain services with a regulation intended to further safeguard those with religious and moral objections. Clinicians and institutions would not have to provide, participate in, pay for, cover or make referrals for procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds. The National Women’s Law Center, which advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement that the regulation will allow “anyone from a doctor to a receptionist to entities like hospitals and pharmacies to deny a patient critical and sometimes lifesaving care. Personal beliefs should never determine the care a patient receives.”
1970 — I registered for the draft. The War in Vietnam was still going on, though peace talks were beginning. I registered as a “conscientious objector” to the war. This meant explaining my beliefs to my local draft board both in a personal appearance and in an essay. These beliefs did not have to be religious in nature, but could also be moral or ethical. They just couldn’t be based on politics, expediency, or self interest. In addition, my previous life-style had to be consistent with my beliefs.
And yet, being a conscientious objector would not exempt me, if drafted, from serving other members of the military in some form. In my case, I could still be drafted but not have to serve in any capacity involving weapons. Others, who objected to any kind of military service were assigned to alternative service. In other words, although you object, you still were compelled to serve others in some way. Although I objected to the war in general, I didn’t see anything in that objection to prevent me, if I was drafted as a medic, from running on to a battlefield to rescue a wounded soldier or binding up his wounds. The soldier had decided how he would act, and I could decide what I would do.
It seems to me that my situation was a little different than if a corporation, a government employee, a person in business, or a medical provider refuses to provide a basic service to someone else based on their personal religious beliefs. It is one thing to decide for yourself, and another to decide for someone else. I think that if you are participating in a community of diverse individuals, you can do things for others without having them agree with you. Just as I, if called upon, would treat the wounds of a soldier engaged in a war I objected to.
Hundreds of years ago, my hero, Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Freedom of a Christian”. In it, he posed this paradox: “A Christian is an utterly free man, lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is an utterly dutiful man, servant of all, subject to all.” I take this to mean that I am free to follow my conscience as regards myself, my faith and my life, but that the same faith obligates me to serve and love my neighbor.
