In time the Tribune editorial board will recognize its endorsement of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the serious mistake that it is. There is no need to restore religious freedom because there has been no erosion of such freedom. To claim that there has been, and to applaud the creation of laws to enforce that point of view, is to encourage the establishment of a dangerous principle.
No freedom that we enjoy can or should be absolute. We have the right to free speech, but libelous or defamatory speech is rightly prohibited. We have the right to free assembly, but mob action or inciting to riot is justly punished. We have the right to own firearms, but restrictions certainly apply. The crucial concern is the need to strike a balance between rights to claim as one’s own and responsibilities to others that make civil society possible.
The “restrictions” cited as evidence of erosion of religious freedom are attempts to place limits on the effect that the practice of religion has on others. Churches and businesses are kept to certain zones because the volume of traffic that they draw while open would be disturbing in a residential area. Prayer is prohibited in public schools because there is no way to accommodate all possible beliefs, and exclusion would be seen as persecution.
Those are legitimate concerns for all interested in living in reasonable harmony. There is no attempt to restrict the heart of religious freedom: one’s understanding of the nature of God.
To attempt to restore religious freedom where there is no threat is to place religious authority over civil authority. That’s a good working definition of a theocracy. Early Massachusetts in our history and modern Iran are good examples of the style. Neither appeals to me, and I find the thought of living under clerical law a frightening prospect.
