By John Krull
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – Faith can be a tricky thing in public life.
In just the past few days we’ve seen an attempt by social conservatives to graft what they initially called a “religious liberty†bill – and what opponents called an attempt to make discriminating against gay citizens legal – into Arizona law.
John Krull, publisher, TheStatehouseFile.com
Under intense pressure from business, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed the measure, which would have allowed people to refuse to do business with others if they thought doing so violated their faith. Primarily, it was designed to allow social conservatives to say they didn’t want to sell their products or services to gay people, but similar arguments also have been advanced in regard to allowing pharmacists to refuse to offer birth control measures if they believed it went against their belief system.
The squabbling wasn’t confined to Arizona. A host of other states, including Indiana, have considered similar measures.
Just a few days ago, Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, tried to amend similar language into another bill before the Indiana House of Representatives. An outcry arose, and the language was stripped out.
But the reasoning that giving social conservatives the legal right to refuse to do business with or work with gays, lesbians or others whose lives offended them was an issue of faith-based freedom was a subtext in the state’s most divisive argument, the one over same-sex marriages. Several speakers for conservative organizations claimed in testimony before legislative committees this year that people of faith were being “persecuted†because they weren’t being allowed to discriminate against gay people.
The problem and the question here are the same:Â Which people of faith?
One of the most interesting developments over the past 40 years has been the almost universal linkage in the American mind of religion with conservatism.
It wasn’t always that way. Martin Luther King Jr., of course, read the same Bible that religious conservatives do, came to different conclusions and led a movement that focused on challenging repression rather than institutionalizing it.
But, like social conservatives, King sought to change the law so it accorded with his principles.
Nor was he alone.
I did my graduate work at St. Louis University, a school that also was a seminary for Jesuit priests. I was there as a kind of renegade Protestant at the height of the church’s liberation theology period, when the passionate seminarians who shared classes with me expressed an unstinting opposition to conservative and repressive regimes in Latin America – and President Ronald Reagan’s support for such regimes.
The seminarians also condemned what they perceived was Reagan’s “war†on the poor and support for the death penalty as violations of moral principle. At least a few of them didn’t understand why the Bible shouldn’t dictate public policy.
“Who started this separation of church and state nonsense?†one seminarian exclaimed during a particularly impassioned discussion about Reagan and welfare. “It just keeps us from doing the right thing.â€
Doubtless, many religious conservatives today agree with him – even if few of them would be brave enough to argue publicly that the Founders’ decision not to create an established American church was a bad idea.
But they wouldn’t agree with that young seminarian about what their faith charged them to do. They might find common ground in regard to birth control and abortion, but likely not on the death penalty, anti-poverty measures and, given the pope’s latest pronouncements, compassion and tolerance for their gay brothers and sisters.
That’s the problem.
People have looked at the Bible – and other religious texts – for millennia and found evidence for different messages, different imperatives and different codes of conduct. In this country alone, Americans looked to the Bible and found justifications both for supporting slavery and for challenging it, for oppressing women and for liberating them, for opposing war and for going to fight.
Who’s right?
No one on this earth knows for sure.
But that’s why we’ll continue arguing about issues of faith as long as human beings worship and pray.
And that’s also why we always will need to be careful about crafting religious principles into earthly law.
John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism, host of “No Limits†WFYI 90.1 Indianapolis and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.