The following is from comments delivered by University of Virginia Law School professor Douglas Laycock at the private dinner following the official launch of the new Religious Liberty Clinic at Stanford Law School, Jan. 14, 2013 (thanks to Professor Laycock for allowing me to quote from his speech):
“[T]he culture wars have been bad for religious liberty — even as they have illustrated once again the need for religious liberty. . . .
“Two principal sets of issues drive the culture wars and fuel skepticism about religious liberty. One, and I think the lesser of the two, is the rise of a visible community of nonbelievers. . . .
“The other, more important threat to religious liberty is deep disagreement over sexual morality and related issues, including abortion. The most deeply divisive of these issues are abortion and same-sex marriage, but contraception has now been restored to the list after a half-century of détente. With respect to each of these issues, what one side views as a grave evil, the other side views as a fundamental human right. In the view of the pro-life and traditional marriage movements, abortion and same-sex marriage are so evil they must be prohibited for everybody. Which means, in the view of pro-choice women and same-sex couples, that these believers are attempting to interfere with some of the most intimate and personal of human decisions and to impose their controversial view of morality on the entire population.
“It is hardly a surprise that the pro-choice and gay-rights movements view these conservative believers very negatively. They view them as bigoted, a word they mostly use with respect to same-sex marriage. Beyond that, many of them believe, and occasionally say explicitly, that the religious side is evil. Of course that word is more commonly used by the religious side to describe the practices of its opponents.
“For too many on the pro-choice and gay rights side, the free exercise of religion begins to look like a bad idea. It is a bad idea because it empowers their enemies. It should be interpreted extremely narrowly, confined to a bare right to believe whatever crazy and bigoted things you like. But it can’t mean a right to act on those beliefs; a right to actually exercise a religion.
“For a few people, this hostility to religious liberty may be a thought-out position. For many more, it is a growing intuitive reaction. They are tired of hearing from the Catholic bishops and the evangelical preachers — tired of hearing about their religion, and increasingly skeptical of their claims to religious liberty. And it’s likely to get worse before it gets better.
“Religious liberty provides a model for resolving or ameliorating these conflicts. Abortion is a special case, because the pro-life side sees it as killing innocent human beings. You cannot be live-and-let-live about that.
“But for the rest, the religious side could agree not to seek legal restrictions on other people’s sex lives. It mostly has agreed, except for same-sex marriage – but of course that’s a huge exception, and not incidentally, it is the only issue of sexual conduct where the traditionalists still think they have a chance of winning.
“The advocates of sexual liberty and marriage equality could agree not to demand that religious individuals or institutions assist or facilitate practices they consider immoral. But as their political position strengthens, they increasingly do not agree. They demand that religious institutions provide free contraception and free medications that, according to the FDA-approved label, may sometimes cause abortions. They demand that religious landlords rent to unmarried couples, that wedding planners do same-sex weddings, and that counselors counsel same-sex couples. No same-sex couple in its right mind would want to be counseled by someone who thinks that their relationship is fundamentally evil; the goal of these lawsuits is to drive conservative Christian counselors out of the profession. The pro-choice side increasingly complains about longstanding conscience protections for medical providers who refuse to assist with abortions. Neither side seems willing to accept live-and-let-live solutions if they think they have to votes to impose their own views on the other side.
“So religious liberty is in trouble politically.”
Notable Quote
The following is from comments delivered by University of Virginia Law School professor Douglas Laycock at the private dinner following the official launch of the new Religious Liberty Clinic at Stanford Law School, Jan. 14, 2013 (thanks to Professor Laycock for allowing me to quote from his speech):
“[T]he culture wars have been bad for religious liberty — even as they have illustrated once again the need for religious liberty. . . .
“Two principal sets of issues drive the culture wars and fuel skepticism about religious liberty. One, and I think the lesser of the two, is the rise of a visible community of nonbelievers. . . .
“The other, more important threat to religious liberty is deep disagreement over sexual morality and related issues, including abortion. The most deeply divisive of these issues are abortion and same-sex marriage, but contraception has now been restored to the list after a half-century of détente. With respect to each of these issues, what one side views as a grave evil, the other side views as a fundamental human right. In the view of the pro-life and traditional marriage movements, abortion and same-sex marriage are so evil they must be prohibited for everybody. Which means, in the view of pro-choice women and same-sex couples, that these believers are attempting to interfere with some of the most intimate and personal of human decisions and to impose their controversial view of morality on the entire population.
“It is hardly a surprise that the pro-choice and gay-rights movements view these conservative believers very negatively. They view them as bigoted, a word they mostly use with respect to same-sex marriage. Beyond that, many of them believe, and occasionally say explicitly, that the religious side is evil. Of course that word is more commonly used by the religious side to describe the practices of its opponents.
“For too many on the pro-choice and gay rights side, the free exercise of religion begins to look like a bad idea. It is a bad idea because it empowers their enemies. It should be interpreted extremely narrowly, confined to a bare right to believe whatever crazy and bigoted things you like. But it can’t mean a right to act on those beliefs; a right to actually exercise a religion.
“For a few people, this hostility to religious liberty may be a thought-out position. For many more, it is a growing intuitive reaction. They are tired of hearing from the Catholic bishops and the evangelical preachers — tired of hearing about their religion, and increasingly skeptical of their claims to religious liberty. And it’s likely to get worse before it gets better.
“Religious liberty provides a model for resolving or ameliorating these conflicts. Abortion is a special case, because the pro-life side sees it as killing innocent human beings. You cannot be live-and-let-live about that.
“But for the rest, the religious side could agree not to seek legal restrictions on other people’s sex lives. It mostly has agreed, except for same-sex marriage – but of course that’s a huge exception, and not incidentally, it is the only issue of sexual conduct where the traditionalists still think they have a chance of winning.
“The advocates of sexual liberty and marriage equality could agree not to demand that religious individuals or institutions assist or facilitate practices they consider immoral. But as their political position strengthens, they increasingly do not agree. They demand that religious institutions provide free contraception and free medications that, according to the FDA-approved label, may sometimes cause abortions. They demand that religious landlords rent to unmarried couples, that wedding planners do same-sex weddings, and that counselors counsel same-sex couples. No same-sex couple in its right mind would want to be counseled by someone who thinks that their relationship is fundamentally evil; the goal of these lawsuits is to drive conservative Christian counselors out of the profession. The pro-choice side increasingly complains about longstanding conscience protections for medical providers who refuse to assist with abortions. Neither side seems willing to accept live-and-let-live solutions if they think they have to votes to impose their own views on the other side.