America’s New Religion Problem

The United States does not have a religion problem — our First Amendment proves that. However, it seems the United States has a people problem. Instead of tolerating diversity, we have adamantly worked against spiritual autonomy. 

The First Amendment protects our right to religious freedom —this is widely understood. Centuries later, the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) addresses the First Amendment’s shortfalls, where the liberty of practicing religion meets secular law. 

That being said, what happens when the line between church and state becomes blurred?

Those who are religious and antireligious alike question the RFRA’s true purpose and actual effectiveness. The act was meant to allow certain religious practices to take priority over secular law—with compelling justification. Yet, the act fails to address social accceptance of religion itself.

Ben Carson, popular political conservative leader and author of “America the Beautiful”, commented on the amazing tolerance and harmony that he experienced giving speeches concerning religion.

According to his book, Columbine High School school officials asked Carson not to mention God in his speech there, following the tragic mass shootings. Carson felt the community needed such faith and assurance, so he did not comply with the request. He spoke of his Creator and received a standing ovation.

The RFRA does not force anyone to believe in any supernatural force in which they do not otherwise believe. It simply allows those who do have religious beliefs to practice them without undue burden.

This does not mean, however, that paramedics who identify as Christians can deny care to the LGBT community, as recent media, such as a recent CBS News’ article on a Michigan religious freedom bill, suggests. Nor does it allow Muslim extremists to freely practice homicidal behaviors. These ideas and actions would not have compelling justifications, as the RFRA requires.

To play devil’s advocate: what then, is the purpose of this act?

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), a Native American was denied a job due to a positive drug test for a Schedule I substance, peyote. This hallucinogen is derived from cactuses and is used during religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court sided with the Native Americans and permitted the drug for religious practices. This decision was an important precedent for other cases of similar nature.

The results of this precedent are seen in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006), in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Schedule I substance being used in tea for religious ceremonies. This Schedule I substance, ayahuasca, contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a hallucinogenic used in the sacramental tea. The court sided with the Brazilian church in question because the U.S. government could not prove that they had a compelling interest in barring the substance. 

The RFRA comes in handy for lawful acceptance of religious practices, but what about the social acceptance of religion itself? Is the allowance of hallucinogenic substances during religious practices seen as a triumph or a gateway for illegal drugs to be misused based on a phony religious claim?

The results of the act are limited and controversial, mirroring the complications of the act itself. It does not solve the root of the problem, only the leaves that stem from it. Our nation’s democracy flows through waves of liberalism and conservatism with every election, but no matter the sway, our values should remain the same: tolerance, unity and freedom.

According to a Pew Forum poll on religion in the U.S., 78.4 percent of the population identified themselves as Christian, 1.7 percent identified as Jewish, 0.6 percent as Muslim and 1.6 percent as atheist.

For every atheist, there are 50 people who identify as Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Why is that one person able to outshout 50 others? Why are the religious so afraid to fight back? They are not afraid. They are simply tolerant.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act serves as little of the population as possible because it does not change the problems the religious majority faces. With the line separating church and state becoming more controversial every day, how is our nation going to be able to return to its Judeo-Christian roots?

Carson suggests a cause for this separation:“Freedom to worship or not worship as one pleases would not be an issue were it not for the extreme intolerance of antireligion groups. These are the same people who brand anyone who disagrees with their agenda as bigoted and intolerant.”

Those who are antireligious have progress to make, but the religious do, too. Neither side should ask to receive what they are not willing to give — tolerance.

Rebecca Peters writes about current political events for The Pitt News. 

Write Rebecca at rcp30@pitt.edu