The Fine Line Between Religious Freedom and Discrimination

Abstract 

Religious freedom essays can help to clarify the line between the right to practice religion freely and the suppression of human rights. While some religious groups may oppose women's right to receive an abortion or contraceptive medication, denying access to these medical services is crossing the line of religious freedom. LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage, do not infringe on anyone's religious freedom, and denying same-sex couples the same level of legal recognition of their relationship goes against the idea of religious freedom. Moreover, when it comes to assisted suicide, forbidding someone from dying in a dignified way and in a way where they are comfortable is simply wrong, and religion should not interfere with that.

Introduction

The United States of America is a beautiful country that promises many freedoms to it's citizens. Religious freedom specifically is something this nation promises, being one of the core reasons the country was founded in the first place. However, where is the line between freedom of religion and the suppression of others' lives and decisions? The answer to this question is different depending on who you ask. My own personal belief on this is that everyone should be allowed to practice their religion freely and without interference. However, their beliefs should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against certain groups of people, deny access to medical services, or do things that go against the general good of the population as a whole. The line where religious freedom becomes suppression is at the point where religion is used to discriminate or deny people their human rights.

Religious freedom (essay)

One of the major issues challenged by religious freedom is whether or not a woman should have the right to receive an abortion or a prescription for contraceptive medication. There are many religious groups that are taking the stance of being pro-life. They are actively lobbying against women having the right to these medical services on the basis of it being the murder of a child. Receiving an abortion is not a decision someone makes lightly. It is a decision made after much deliberation and done in favor of the mother's-potential child's well-being. The reality of abortion is that the vast majority of them are performed as early as possible. According to a 2018 abortion surveillance summary posted by the CDC, based on reported data from 49 areas, “In 2018, approximately three-fourths (77.7%) of abortions were performed at ? 9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.2%) were performed at ? 13 weeks’ gestation.”( Kortsmit et al. 2018) People do not go out of their way to have an abortion in the late stages of the fetus' development. Such procedures are only performed when the mother's life is at severe risk. There are also instances of rape, child teen pregnancy, the potential child having severe health issues that will lead to intense suffering and death within a few hours of it being born, and people who are not financially able to take care of a child. Denying access to contraceptive medication as well will only lead to more abortions. Taking a contraceptive pill does not “kill” anything, it only prevents fertilization from happening through altering hormones within the body. If these groups are so determined to get rid of abortions then they should at the very least support contraceptive medication, as they are something that reduce the number of abortions that would potentially happen. Not everyone practices religion, which means not everyone believes that things like premarital sex are wrong. As a religious person, you have the right to not take part in these medical procedures, and to not take contraceptive medication. However, others utilizing these medical services is not infringing on your religious freedom. Expecting everyone to follow your beliefs is crossing the line from religious freedom to suppression of others' human rights.

LGBT rights

Another major issue that comes up when talking about religious freedom is LGBT rights. Is same-sex marriage a threat to religious freedom? Some religious people believe that same-sex marriage is immoral and goes against traditional values of what family is, therefore they cannot “condone” it. They feel that having it legalized threatens their religious freedom. Thankfully, it has already been legalized country-wide since 2015. However, that doesn't stop people from being vocally against it or lobbying to have that rolled back. Same-sex couples getting married does not affect other people's personal relationships, nor does it infringe on anyone's religious freedom. While marriage is definitely a religious procedure, it holds much more meaning than purely being ceremonious. Being married is something that holds certain benefits. Among those are various financial, legal, and tax related benefits. Tricia Andryszewski writes in her book titled “Same-Sex Marriage: Granting Equal Rights or Damaging the Status of Marriage?”

“Marriage automatically makes couples next of kin. This status carries with it many legal rights and obligations that make family life easier. Federal law specifies more than one thousand ways in which the U.S. Government treats married people as a distinct class. Each of those thousand distinctions gives a special status, right, or benefit. (Most of these distinctions are connected with Social Security; veterans' benefits; and federal income, state, and gift taxes.)”

All couples, regardless of whether or not they're same-sex or straight, should be entitled to the same level of legal recognition of their relationship. Having this be allowed to happen does not affect anyone's religious freedom, and denying others of this is crossing the line with religious freedom.

There is also the topic of assisted suicide. When someone is terminally ill and their health is deteriorating, some states allow patients within this criteria to have the option of assisted suicide. While this topic is heavily debated throughout religious communities, there are those who oppose it. Pope Francis himself, along with representatives for other faiths believe, as stated in a National Catholic Reporter article written by Carol Glatz,

“Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are 'inherently and consequentially morally and religiously wrong and should be forbidden with no exceptions. Any pressure upon dying patients to end their lives by active and deliberate actions is categorically rejected.” (C,Glatz, 2019, par 7)

To forbid someone from dying in a dignified way and in a way where they are comfortable is simply wrong. Religion should not interfere with medical care. If someone is terminally ill and their condition is deteriorating, I believe that they should have the right to decide if they'd like to end their life before the suffering becomes too intense. I don't believe that assisted suicide is morally wrong. Forcing someone to suffer until their death when they'd rather pass on their own terms is arguably more morally wrong. Someone's religious beliefs should have no influence on whether or not someone can receive such a medical service. Forcing someone to suffer to death is not religious freedom, it's a denial of medical service.

Vaccines and public health

Lastly is the topic of vaccines and public health. Over the past year the world has been plagued with the highly contagious Covid-19 virus. Throughout this epidemic, there has been some opposition from religious groups on multiple accounts in the United States. They, at a much higher percentage than other demographics, have been unwilling to get the vaccine and follow government ordered mandates. They are also more resistant to following rules such as wearing a mask and social distancing. Is requiring these things from them infringing on their religious freedom? This is a complex issue and there is no clear-cut answer. While everyone has the right to practice their religion freely, this right is not absolute and can be restricted if it poses a threat to public health and safety. Religious beliefs cannot be used as a justification for endangering the health of others.

It is important to note that many religious leaders and organizations have encouraged their followers to get vaccinated and follow public health guidelines. However, some individuals and groups have cited religious reasons for their refusal to comply with vaccine and mask mandates. In situations where there is a clear and present danger to public health, it may be necessary to implement measures that apply to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. It is important to balance the need to protect public health with the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely. Ultimately, the best approach is for religious leaders and communities to work together with public health officials to promote vaccination and adherence to public health guidelines. By doing so, we can protect the health and well-being of everyone, while also respecting religious freedom.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the United States guarantees freedom of religion to its citizens, this does not mean that religious beliefs should be used to suppress the lives and decisions of others. People should be allowed to practice their religion freely, but not to the point of discriminating or denying human rights to certain groups. Issues like abortion and contraception, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide bring up questions on where the line should be drawn on religious freedom. People should have the right to make their own decisions about their bodies, their relationships, and their health, without their religious beliefs being used to suppress them. Ultimately, religious freedom should not be used as an excuse to deny others their basic human rights.