Connect with us

The Religious Right’s Campaign to Strip All Citizens of Religious Freedom

Published

on

Turn on any cable news show and you’ll hear conservatives, particularly from the Religious Right, giving long tirades about religious freedom and how the Left is seeking to strip it away from good God-fearing Americans. But if you watch how the Religious Right works in court, you know that it’s actually the other way around.

Religious freedom has been a strongly-held belief in America since the very beginning. All three branches of government have worked hard to preserve the rights of Americans to choose for themselves whether they wished to be Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, or an atheist. It’s a fundamental part of the system that our country built itself on: the right to believe as you will, and to change your mind about it.

Legislative bodies and the courts have centered those rights around the individual—allowing the individual to choose for themselves how they would or would not believe in a god, rather than imbuing an institution with the right to choose for them.

If you were to believe the talking points of conservative punditryland, you might think that the right to believe (or not) as you will is under attack from the Left, and that no-good liberals (particular the gays) are trying to force Americans to accept their wicked ways and deny those good God-fearing citizens their right to worship in peace.

But how is this actually playing out in the courts and in the legislatures?

Hobby Lobby

In the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby case before the U.S. Supreme Court right now, the owners of the private for-profit corporation Hobby Lobby chain are seeking an exemption from a provision within the Affordable Care Act that requires that the health insurance their employees receive include coverage for birth control methods such as morning after pills and IUDs. Hobby Lobby’s owners, the Green family (who happen to be evangelical Christians) say that they consider such birth control methods to be abortifacients—despite the medical and scientific community pointing out that they are not—and as such their company should be exempted from the Affordable Care Act because providing their employees with insurance coverage for such methods is a violation of their religious freedom.

Mississippi’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act

On April 1 this year (appropriately), the conservative-controlled Mississippi state legislature passed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was quickly signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant (R). The bill allows businesses to turn away customers and/or employees (such as LGBTQ people) because the owner of the business happens to disagree with them on a religious level.

A similar law was passed just a few months prior by the Arizona legislature, but Governor Jan Brewer had vetoed it after coming under enormous national pressure and media scrutiny.

Whose Rights?

What both of these situations highlight is the concerted effort by the leaders of the Religious Right to fundamentally alter the way religious freedom works. Where in the past it has always been applied to—and designed for—the individual, Christian Right legal organizations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly known as Alliance Defense Fund of Prop 8 notoriety) are seeking to strip those rights away from you and me, and bestow them upon businesses themselves. Those corporate religious beliefs can then be used to circumvent civil rights laws, if they happen to conflict with the businesses’ newly-bestowed conscience.

What does this mean for us? It won’t just affect LGBTQ people. If the only religious beliefs that matter are what your boss happens to believe, employees across the country will be forced into complying with those beliefs or risk their (and their family’s) livelihood and well being. If a business owner happens to belong to a faith that believes women should always be subservient to men, they could legally be allowed to deny women managerial positions (or not hire them at all). Muslims could refuse to hire Jewish workers, or keep them at lower pay rates than their co-workers. White business owners in the South could use religion as an excuse to deny service to Black customers.

Now, neither the Hobby Lobby case or the Mississippi law go so far as to completely open the floodgates for all of these civil rights abuses on their own, but each are significant cracks in the wall. And once precedent is set, the next exemption is that much easier to create.

If we are going to shore up the foundations of religious freedom, it’s going to take more than just quippy catchphrases. The Religious Right has been enormously successful capturing the dialogue, and painting all outsiders, particularly the LGBTQ community, as the enemies of our rights. We’ve got to help the nation understand that the leaders of the Right are seeking to not only strip the religious freedom of LGBTQ people, but of every citizen—no matter what their beliefs.

Eric Ethington has been specializing in political messaging, communications strategy, and public relations for more than a decade. Originally hailing from Salt Lake City, he now works in Boston for a social justice think tank. Eric’s writing, advocacy work, and research have been featured on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, CNBC, the New York Times, The Telegraph, and The Public Eye magazine. He’s worked as a radio host, pundit, blogger, activist and electoral campaign strategist. He also writes at NuanceStillMatters.com 

Follow Author Eric Ethington on Twitter @EricEthington

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

NCRM

Trump Promises to Lower Drug Costs as House GOP Tries to Cut $880B From Medicaid

Published

15 minutes ago

on

May 12, 2025

By

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday aimed at cutting drug costs. Meanwhile, his fellow Republicans in the House are trying to gut Medicaid.

Trump’s executive order, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” is an attempt to “equalize evident price discrimination,” allowing Americans to pay the same price as other “comparably developed nations.”

“This abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end.  Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories.  As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal,” the EO reads in part.

READ MORE: ‘Pushed Up to the Edge of the Cliff’: GOP Proposals Would Kick Millions Off Health Care

Prior to the announcement, Trump posted to Truth Social that “DRUG PRICES TO BE CUT BY 59%,” but did not provide details on where that figure came from. It is also unclear if the White House has the authority to enforce this order, according to NPR.

PhRMA President and CEO Steve Ubl dismissed the executive order, saying that it was other countries paying such low prices that drives up costs for Americans. Ubl implied that the executive order may require those countries to pay more.

“The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines. U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation,” Ubl said. “Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers. It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America – threatening jobs, hurting our economy and making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

While Trump was promising to help American health care consumers on Monday, the night before, his colleagues in the House revealed legislation that would cut over $880 billion in Medicaid funding. Republicans say that the cuts will result in savings to the average American, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said “millions of Americans will lose their health care coverage,” according to the AP.

“Hospitals will close, seniors will not be able to access the care they need, and premiums will rise for millions of people if this bill passes,” Pallone continued.

Not all Republicans are on board with this bill. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote a guest essay for The New York Times condemning the legislation. He called the bill “both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

NCRM

US Lifts Ban on Afghan Deportations, Despite UN Warning of ‘Escalating Crisis’

Published

1 hour ago

on

May 12, 2025

By

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that the ban on deporting Afghans had been lifted due to improvements in their home country. The United Nations has warned this isn’t the case, and deportees could be in danger.

The about-face is yet another example of the Trump administration reversing a Biden-era policy. Beginning in 2022, Afghan refugees were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), according to NPR. In addition to stopping deportation, TPS also gives refugees authorization to work in the United States.

Noem said the decision to rescind TPS was due to improving conditions in Afghanistan, citing an “improved security situation” and “stabilizing economy,” according to The Hill. The TPS designation expires on May 20, and becomes effective July 12, 60 days after the announcement is scheduled to be officially published in the Federal Register.

READ MORE: Trump Team Pushing ‘Utter Propaganda’ on Deportations to Create ‘Climate of Fear’: Experts

Despite Noem saying Afghanistan is safe for refugees, the State Department still gives the country a “Do Not Travel” designation. The State Department warns “travel to all areas of Afghanistan is unsafe,” according to NPR.

The United Nations also disputes Noem’s claims. A report published by the U.N. last month refers to an “escalating humanitarian crisis” in the country, and say increase deportations could further destabilize things. Iran and Pakistan have forcibly deported 96,000 Afghan refugees in April alone, the U.N. reported.

Afghan refugees in America—even those with green cards—say they’re afraid to return.

“It doesn’t matter just how you got here,” Muhammad Amiri, a Afghan refugee with legal permanent residency, told NPR. “We don’t feel safe, and we don’t feel good because now, we feel threatened, if they send us back to our country, it will be the same story. [We] feel threatened to be tortured, maybe be killed by [the] Taliban.”

Though Amiri has a green card, the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration has many worried. Amiri’s fiancée is in Afghanistan, and he told NPR he was afraid to visit her, due to fears he may not be allowed back into the country. Amiri’s fears are not unfounded; Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at airports have already turned away or detained those who come to the United States legally, according to The Verge.

The Taliban,a militant Islamic fundamentalist group, is still in control of Afghanistan. The Taliban bans women from working or being educated. This week, it also banned chess, according to the Telegraph. The Taliban has been in control since the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country, ending the longest war in which America has been involved.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Karoline Leavitt Says Qatar Won’t Expect Anything in Return for Deluxe Jet

Published

4 hours ago

on

May 12, 2025

By

The nation of Qatar has reportedly promised to give President Donald Trump a new deluxe jet for use as Air Force One—but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that it isn’t a quid pro quo situation, as they know not to expect anything in return.

This weekend, ABC News broke the story that Qatar’s royal family is planning to give the Defense Department a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet. The jet is reportedly so tricked out that it’s been called a “flying palace,” according to ABC News. After Trump leaves office, the ownership of the plane will transfer from the DoD to the Trump presidential library foundation.

Some might see the gift as an attempt by the Qatari government to curry favor with the American president. But on Monday morning, Leavitt denied that the jet would earn the country special privileges.

READ MORE: During Aviation Crisis Trump Is Shopping for Used Luxury Jet to Replace Air Force One

“They know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind,” told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News, adding saying the Trump administration and DoD had “[committed] ourselves to the utmost transparency and that the gift was fully legal.

Qatar’s gift to Trump has been controversial with many Americans, including some members of Trump’s base. The far-right influencer Laura Loomer—a longtime ally of the president—called the acceptance of the gift “a stain on the admin” in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday.

Other critics have said the gift violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which requires government officials to reject gifts unless they get explicit approval from Congress. While a president may accept small, token gifts from leaders, a federal law puts a cap on politicians from receiving gifts worth more than $480.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said the gift is in clear violation of the emoluments clause, and called on Trump to seek Congress’ approval to take the gift, according to The Hill.

“The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present ‘of any kind whatever’ from a foreign state without Congressional permission,” Raskin said on X. “A gift you use for four years and then deposit in your library is still a gift (and a grift).”

During President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump pushed a conspiracy theory that Biden had offered loan guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for the dismissal of a prosecutor investigating the Burisma energy company. The then-president’s son, Hunter Biden, was a board member of Burisma.

While Trump’s claims were repeatedly debunked, Trump’s first impeachment was over proven reports that Trump blocked a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine—already approved by Congress—in an attempt to get the country to investigate Joe Biden and damage his presidential campaign.

That is not the only time Trump has been accused of making quid pro quo—latin for “this for that”—deals. Earlier this year, comments made by “border czar” Tom Homan on Fox News implied an agreement was made to drop federal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams  in exchange for his support.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.