It appears that the Republicans (GOP) has the mindset of using religion to cover for unpalatable policy preferences. In the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration statute, IC-34-13-9, effective July 1, 2015, religion is defined broadly (section 5 of the statute) as is the definition of person (section 7 of the statute). With these two broad definitions, this statute could be used as the vehicle to oppose (or support) policy that the GOP opposes or supports. [In contrast, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, P.L. 103-141, is specific (addresses particular Supreme Court decisions).]
These religious freedom bills destroy the meaning of religion in order to use “religion” as a political instrument. Section 5 of the Indiana law is so broad such that any claim of “religion” is enough to trigger the law against a disfavored government policy. Seemingly, the disfavored policies could be those which conflict with GOP tenets (for example, the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare (Indiana uses the federal marketplace.)).
The statute’s weakness is its vagueness. This same vagueness makes it a strong vehicle for “religion-” based policy preferences.
The logical structure appears to be the following:
GOP policy preference is not palatable with the broad society, thus there should be a mechanism to enforce that preference through an alternative means. For example, the vehicle in this case is “religious freedom.” (The logical structure is explained through the chart below.)
|GOP logical argument||Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Statute, IC-34-13-9|
|Free exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.|
|Religious beliefs are also Constitutionally protected.|
|Religious beliefs belong to persons.||Sec. 7: “As used in this chapter, ‘person’ includes the following: (1) an individual, (2) an organization, religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes, (3) a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and may be sued, (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.”|
|Those religious beliefs may have policy preferences deriving from that belief, which should also be protected.|
|These preferences may include preferences similar to those of the GOP.||Sec. 5: “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”|
|If so, that religious belief AND its derivative policy preferences should be Constitutionally protected.|
|Religious Freedom Restoration statutes recognize the tie between religious belief and its derivative policy preferences.|
|(But the concern is only for government.)||Sec. 11: “The chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.”|
The problem with the GOP’s use of religion is that it disrespects religion in order to use it as a policy weapon exclusively in order to force GOP policy preferences on the society. This activity is unfortunate, but policymakers must be aware of the technique, especially when crafting legislation.