“[O]ur right to the free exercise of religion is co-equal to our right to life,” according to the campaign website of Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who won his party’s nomination to the United States Senate on Tuesday. Nebraska is a solid red state that preferred Romney to Obama by a massive 21 point margin in 2012, so Sasse is now all but certain to succeed retiring Sen. Mike Johanns (R) this November. If he does, Sasse promises to promote an almost anarchistic vision of religious liberty as a member of the Senate. According to Sasse’s website, “[g]overnment cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances.”
Imagine living in a country in which ANYONE could violate ANY law at ANY time and claim immunity from prosecution due to “religious belief.” Most rational people would reject that concept out of hand as a recipe for anarchy and chaos. This country’s based on the rule of law, a set of standards ALL those on our shores are expected to adhere to, regardless of faith or creed. To create an exception for “religious belief” is the very definition of looming disaster.
To accept Sasse’s philosophy means that we must live in a society that is effectively lawless, because what’s to stop anyone from claiming “religious belief” as justification for their criminality? I suspect Sasse would think this line of reasoning absurd, but if you’re going to allow “religious belief” as justification for criminal behavior, where do you draw the line? Or DO you draw a line? Is there even a line to be drawn? What constitutes “religious belief?” Who gets to define it determine which beliefs are acceptable and which aren’t? To call Sasse’s assertion a slippery slope would be to do a grave disservice to slippery slopes.
Murder? No problem:
My God demands the regular sacrifice of young virgins in order to cleanse myself of sin.
Armed robbery? We’ve got you covered:
I believe in Prosperity Theology, which says that I have the right to expect great material wealth…and to take it by force if all else fails.
Pedophilia? Puh-leeze:
God commands me to love all His creations…espcially the young ones.
Rape? That’s easy:
My God grants me the right to enjoy the carnal services of women, forcefully if required…because the fairer sex exists expressly and primarily for the sexual gratification of men.
Yes, I’m being ridiculous, but these are all arguments that could conceivably be made if we were granted the right to claim “religious belief” to justify irresponsible, dangerous, and/or criminal behavior. When we believe God’s defined the world as existing primarily and only for our edification and pleasure, how could there possibly be limits placed on personal behavior? That we may harm or injure others in the pursuit of our “religious belief” seems merely an unfortunate side effect limited to those not fortunate enough to believe in such an enlightened religious doctrine.
I can’t think of a more effective and prescient argument for the separation of Church and State than Sasse’s philosophy, which could be used to justify all manner of mayhem and criminality in the name of your particular flavor of Special Friend. That flush you heard was the rule of law being disposed of….
[Sasse’s] proposed rule — that government cannot require someone to act counter to their religious beliefs “under any circumstances” — would mean that literally any law could be ignored by someone who held a religious belief counter to that law. According to National Geographic, for example, “[h]undreds, if not thousands, of women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family ‘honor,’” and while this practice “goes across cultures and across religions,” some of the perpetrators of honor killings are motivated by their religious faith. Under Sasse’s formulation of religious liberty, a person who killed his own sister because he believed he was under a religious obligation to do so would be immune from prosecution for murder.
Honor killings, acts of terror, genital mutilation- all these things and more could be justified under Sasse’s philosophy. It would effectively mean the end of the rule of law and the beginning of chaos. If we can take whatever we want, rape and/or kill whomever we choose, and destroy what we see fit in the name of “religious belief,” there’s nothing to stop America from becoming a theocracy and economic basket case along the lines of Somalia.
An interesting idea from someone who probably fears the imposition of Sharia law in America, don’tchathink?
Sasse’s belief and desire to drag America back to the Stone Age notwithstanding, it’s unlikely we’ll see the rule of law discarded in favor of “religious belief.” While he’ll almost certainly become the next U.S. Senator from Nebraska (And what does that say about denizens of Cornhusker Nation?), it’s unlikely that he’ll garner anywhere near the support necessary to put America on the path to becoming Somalia.
