Wisconsin Supreme Court will remain solidly conservative for the foreseeable future thanks to very narrow and unexpected victory by Brian Hagedorn. It was expected that Mr. Hagedorn’s more liberal opponent was going to easily win the seat especially after more natural supporters have turned away from Mr. Hagedorn. All the explanations I have seen for this unexpected win point to conservatives being mobilized in response to perceived attacks on Mr. Hagedorn’s religious views. And as often happens in this context the expression “religious freedom laws” starts to come up. It appears Mr. Hagedorn’s most ardent religious belief is hatred of the LGBT people.
The first time I became conscious of the term “religious freedom” being used as means of justifying discrimination and prejudice was when Indiana passed its Defense of Religious Freedom Act which was swiftly signed into law by the homophone in chief, then Indiana Governor, Mike Pence. The purpose and context of the bill seemed to be strictly anti freedom. So, perversely, freedom loving population was placed in a position of protesting something that, on its face, seems to be enshrined in our Constitution. I have finally decided to look into this to understand if the conservatives are just using words to call up down and down up or if there is something more to this. Here is what I have found. The original Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed back in 1993. It was introduced by, hold on to your hats, Chuck Schumer in the House and late Edward Kennedy in the Senate. It passed nearly unanimously and was signed into law by President Clinton. The intention of the law was really to codify a concept established by case law but overturned by later case law that if a law is passed that interferes with exercise of religion by its application, the government has to demonstrate that such burden is necessary for furthering compelling government interest and that the resulting burden is least restrictive. There was a recognition that sometimes laws that have nothing to do with religion may result in restrictions or burdens of exercising one’s religion, and in that case, the government has to demonstrate that despite the burden the law may impose, such law is imperative in pursuing compelling government interest. Later on, Supreme Court ruled that the law only applied to the Federal laws and not on the state level. So, a number of states have passed equivalent laws to be applied at the state level. Including, the now infamous, Indiana law. While the intent of the defense of religious freedom act was really to ensure that people’s rights to exercise their religions in free and unobstructed ways were not frivolously impeded upon by the government, these laws have now been perversely used to justify impeding on people’s rights to not be discriminated against. Everyone’s right to do anything ends when such right impedes the rights of others. And defending general public from discrimination should be one of the most compelling government’s interests that exists. Trampling on people’s rights should never be viewed as exercise of someone’s religious or any other freedom. If a person believes that homosexuality is against their religious beliefs, they should not engage in homosexual behavior. If discrimination against people who don’t adhere to your religious norms is part of your religious beliefs, by all means do not go into a business of serving public. But there cannot be government sanctioned discrimination. Taking away people’s freedoms while using a law that was intended specifically to preserve people’s freedoms is perverting the intent and design of the law. This distortion of law and its intent was recognized when Defense of Religious Freedom Act was being misused to justify denying women health care coverage in the Hobby Lobby case. Nineteen of the members of Congress that originally signed the law submitted a brief to the Supreme Court stating that they “could not have anticipated, and did not intend, such a broad and unprecedented expansion of RFRA”.
And speaking of perverting our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Julian Assange got arrested this week. Maybe I should use the picture of him being carried out of the Ecuadorian embassy every time my kids refuse to clean their rooms, but then again, that might warrant a call from child protective services. There have been fierce debates about his arrest, possible extradition to the US and US chargers against him. Just like people who have used religious freedom laws to strip freedoms from people, Julian Assange has misused and misapplied the freedom of speech and press laws and principles to try and justify unethical and potentially illegal behavior. To be clear, I do not believe that Mr. Assange should ever stand trial for exposing misdeed of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. But doing a potentially noble deed does not justify or immune him from having to answer for all the other misdeeds that followed. Julian Assange is not Catherine Graham and Ben Bradlee grappling with the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Neither his motivations nor his methods have anything to do with serving anything or anybody other than himself. He is an attention seeking anarchist punk hellbent on destroying something or anything as long as it brings him attention and fame. He is currently serving Putin but I don’t think he really has an ideology beyond creating chaos in the world for its own sake, so if someone comes along that can be a better vessel for that goal that’s who Mr. Assange will serve. But being an attention seeking anarchist punk is not a crime. Breaking or attempting to break into US Department of Defense computers is. And if US government is able to make that case, Julian Assange should be punished for that crime. He should also be investigated for his role in the theft (not publication) of the DNC e-mails and if the case can be made that he was involved in hacking the DNC, he should answer for that as well. He should also stand trial for rape in Sweden. Assange’s insistence that he needed asylum because he was afraid for his life and safety in the hands of Swedes (he claimed asylum when the only charges against him were pending in Sweden for sexual misconduct including rape) are laughable. Once again, this makes me feel like we live in a distorted mirrors world. Where a man who has endangered dissidents around the world by exposing them to regimes that really do kill and torture without proper judicial process is claiming asylum to avoid facing judicial process in one of the freest democracies in the world.
My kids occasionally play the “I am rubber, you are glue” game, anything said about them bounces off them and attaches to you. “You are messy”, “No, you are messy.” I feel like I am living in this game permanently on a much bigger scale. You tell conservatives, you are bigots, to which they answer, no we are not bigots, you are, because you are impeding on my religious freedom to be a bigot. You tell a guy, you are endangering freedoms of people and whole democracies with your actions, and he turns around and says you are impeding on my freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the democracies I am trying to destroy. We need to figure out how to ensure that the principles of freedom, democracy, and equality are not perverted by people who fundamentally do not believe in them for anyone else but themselves. We really need to exit this hall of mirrors.