It's 1866, the Civil War is over and The United States has passed the Thirteenth Amendment making slavery illegal. Several Catholic plantation owners refuse to let their slaves go free. They are eventually arrested and brought before a court. They claim they are being discriminated against as Catholics, who are a minority religion in a predominantly Protestant America. Protected by the First Amendment, they have a freedom to religion, and this religion requires that they continue to practice slavery. They cite the recent statement by the Vatican:

Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave. (1866)

To release the slaves--they argue--would endanger their lives and Catholic faith: "It would be against the mission of the church. The enslavement of these people is essential to their liberty and life. The negro is nothing but a child, slavery is for their well-being." They contend that the slave is unable to survive in a free world because he lacks the motivation and the intelligence to do so: "As good Christians, it would be a sin to let them go, where their inferior intellect will lead them astray from Christian values." They cite several Bible versus in which God not only condones and promotes slavery but even lays out rules, such as Leviticus 25:44

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Their defense is simple: The slaves in question, although they were born in America, had descendants from Africa. They were purchased legally and are the legitimate property of the plantations. The Bible is clear, slavery is justified and it would be a mortal sin to let them go given Africans' susceptibility to Satan. "We are simply following the doctrines of our religion, for which we are protected under by the Constitution." But the law is also very clear, according to Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." This cannot be overruled or disobeyed on religious grounds. To go against this is to infringe on these former slaves' rights as citizens of a liberal-democracy. The First Amendment does not protect religious groups that break the law or fail to abide by their obligations as an employer. The plantation owners are ordered to provide their labor with payment and respect their right to life, liberty and property, or otherwise face legal consequences.

Flash-forward to 1964, the Civil Rights Act has just been passed by the United States, making racial segregation in schools illegal. A teacher refuses to teach any students who are black. "It's against my religious values and beliefs" the teacher says. Several others make the same claim and are let go by the school boards. They form a law-suit and accuse the school board of infringing on their religious rights. According to the Bible, Africans are the descendants of Canaan who was cursed by Noah:

Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japeth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave. (Genesis 9:25-27)

The teachers go on to explain that after the Ark, only 8 people were left, living in one place. But this went against God's instructions to "fill the Earth" (Genesis 9:1, 11:14). In order to achieve this, God gave them foreign languages. They could no longer live together and began to spread across the earth. In a matter of generations, they appropriated different physical appearances and skin colors (Genesis 11:8-9). However, it was Canaan and his cursed descendants who ultimately populated Africa. "It's wrong to integrate these societies," the teacher explains "we cannot have the cursed descendants of Canaan in the same classes as good white Christians." The teachers are informed that new legislation has made it illegal to segregate students: "it's against the Constitution of the United States, your right to a religion does not give you the right to discriminate or break the law." They are instructed to either leave the school board or agree to teach students of African descent.

It is now 2010, a law was passed in 2004 legalizing same-sex marriages. A group of commissioners employed by the government refuse to marry same-sex couples. They are forced to resign or agree to perform the services. "We're being discriminated against," they argue. "Our religious rights forbid us to marry same-sex couples. These religious rights are protected under law." The courts inform the commissioners that as public officials they cannot consider their religious views when performing a public function. There is a difference between religious officials and public officials; the latter of which are providing a secular service. As government employees they are obligated to perform their job according to the law. The commissioners' lawyers argue that same-sex couples can always just phone another commissioner: "Is one phone call truly discriminatory? ... It is such a minimal requirement," he says. The religious rights of people should be protected.

Unfortunately this latter scenario is a real debate that is actually occurring in Saskatchewan. The quotes in the above paragraph are legitimate, and it's just the latest case of people using their right to religion to condone discriminatory or hateful acts. What if the court ultimately agrees with the notion of "only one phone call"? Another government commissioner who belongs to a Evangelical Church, refuses to marry an interracial couple because they don't believe a white person should not marry a descendant of Canaan. If a commissioner can refuse to marry a same-sex couple based on their religion, what is to prevent this theoretical scenario from occurring? There is a reason we are a secular society, it not only protects people from having their religious rights infringed, but also from forcing it upon others. Same-sex couples are entitled by law to marriage, an employee of the secular government cannot refuse them this right based on religious grounds. Their religious rights in the private sphere are protected, if he was a religious official belonging to a certain church, he could deny the service, but he is a government employee and as such agrees to the standards of our secular government and laws.

This is not a victimless act. Consider the same-sex couple in question, who are humiliated and emotionally damaged by their rejection in society, despite a law that has been passed giving them the same rights as every other couple in Canada. What if every commissioner in their community refuses to marry them because of their religious views? Are their rights as citizens really being protected by the government? How can anyone allow government employees to disregard new legislation? The right to religion does not give government employees a free pass to discriminate. I can only hope this is deemed as wrong as an Employer refusing to pay black employees, or a teacher refusing to teach minorities.

This article was originally posted at http://herrbesserwisser.blogspot.com/2010/05/freedom-of-religion-is-not-freedom-to.html