The death of Mohammad Ali gave me a bit of a different view of the Scriptures for today. Yesterday, I mentioned how Muhammad Ali’s legal fight helped set a precedent at the Supreme Court that has been of benefit to groups such as the Daughters of Charity and Hobby Lobby. Then I was looking at today’s Scriptures and saw some interesting similarities. If you look at it, Saints Paul and Silas had a religious argument with the existing government laws. They ended up in jail. Eventually their appeal was heard and they were released with an apology. In the same way, Jesus ran into a problem because his religious behavior appeared to violate the Sabbath laws. The religious leaders could not get through to Jesus so they expelled the former blind man from the synagogue. In both cases, there was a conflict between the authorities and someone’s religious beliefs.
The Scriptures today reminded me that conflicts between religious individuals and governments has a long history. I found myself thinking of Daniel and the lion’s den, of Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego, and the fiery furnace, of Esther, of Mordecai, etc., etc. Not all conflicts between religious individuals and the government should be won by the individual. If you read the history of religious court cases, you would end up agreeing with me. But, neither should a government get automatic obedience even if that obedience causes us to violate a sincere conscience. Realistically, it is impossible that all conflicts of conscience will be settled in a way favorable to the religious person. Courts have ruled against issues such as ritual tattooing of minors, even if it were to have a religious meaning. They have also ruled against practices which may be part of a religion, but are found to be an offense to the culture. Think of the no-longer-existing practice in parts of the Asia/Pacific area of cremating a wife along with her dead husband.
But, the American stance has been that, when possible, the law will make serious efforts to permit a private religious belief to be carried out, even if it appears to be nonsensical or even possibly harmful to the adult individual making that choice. It is sometimes a hard matter to judge. But, it brings me to my final point. Neither the individual nor the state have the “right” to win their argument, even if religion is involved. In every case, sound judgment must be exercised. In America, we legally give priority to the private religious belief, but priority is not the same thing as an absolute right. Which means that just because you win a case does not mean you are correct, it only means that there has been an evaluation that there is no reason to intervene. By the same token, not every government intervention is a violation of religious liberty. It may be a violation of some of the tenets of your religion, but that does not make the judgment a violation of religious liberty.
Sometimes, it is difficult to balance rights, principles, and sound governance.
Leave a Reply