Religious Liberty Developments

Among the new Supreme Court grants is a case that might strengthen the rules of the religious accommodation now in place for employees. 

I would not be surprised if the resulting case is unanimous with perhaps one or more justices concurring. The case involves package delivery on Sunday, which seems like an easy case. A constitutional claim involving unemployment benefits for a Seventh-Day Adventist was decided back in the early 1960s.  But, one can imagine tricky situations as seen by various vaccine mandate rules that have been challenged.  

[ETA: High School SCOTUS has a good case preview.] 

A notice that "Biden-Harris Administration Proposes Restoring Protections for Beneficiaries of Federally Funded Social Services" received positive reactions from more than one separation of church and state groups.  The statement includes this general comment:

Today, nine federal agencies are further advancing President Biden’s call for religious freedom and equity for all by proposing a new rule to restore religious liberty protections for beneficiaries of federally funded social services, such as job training and job search assistance, academic enrichment opportunities, and housing services. These protections were rescinded by the previous Administration.

The situation seems to be that the Trump Administration allowed certain groups to block services for those that did not go along with the religious tenets of the organizations in question.  This would arise, for instance, if an LGBTQ person was denied service in certain cases.  

(The bit about encouraging the notification of alternatives brought to mind Gov. Hochul's veto of a bill requiring notification of secular alternatives being available to certain treatment programs.)

Religious liberty groups that are concerned about those with secular beliefs might appreciate as well the president's "Proclamation on Religious Freedom Day, 2023."  The statement included this:

Across the world, minority communities — including Uyghurs, Rohingya, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Jews, Christians, Bahá’ís, Yezidis, atheists, and humanists — continue to face intimidation, violence, and unequal protection under the law.

I have been working on a blog for another website regarding China's mistreatment of Christians. China is officially an atheistic country, but their concerns about proper ideology are likely to clash with some atheists.  More broadly, other nations with official religions have discriminated against  "atheists and humanists" and so forth.  It is good that these statements (including day of prayer announcements) are inclusive.

I read a "very short introduction" book on atheism and it too was not completely inclusive.  I do not recall a single word about Africa. Also, atheists tend to think of a certain breed of monotheism when they speak of "religion," including in criticizing concepts of God.  

It is far from clear that "religion" itself cannot include atheism.  The book briefly recognized the issue here in a final chapter about "new atheists," who are regularly much more militant. The book notes that religion includes "practice, ritual, community, ways of orientation ourselves to the mysteries of the universe," and not just matters of "belief." Belief is an open-ended thing as well.  

If required to fit myself into a generally recognized religion, I would at this time associate myself with the Unitarian-Universalists, who include various people who do not believe in God.  The book also notes that Buddhism, unlike Taoism (Daoism) and Confucianism is firmly labeled as a "religion"  (Taoism is tricky but Confucianism is more of a philosophy), often broadly includes non-theistic aspects (some forms do have mystical aspects).  

Anyway, consistent religious liberty is an important thing, and should not just be left to conservative evangelicals.  I respect the importance of Christians and others having some discretion though reasonable lines should apply.  And, religious liberty includes protections for all, including those whose religion firmly holds that they have the right to choose an abortion.