The new American definition of religious freedom, and therefore religion itself, is total, personal faith.

---

No one in their right mind would say that Kim Davis defines Christianity. They are, however, eager to say that she is practicing her faith. She is being a Christian.

Yesterday I wrote about what we should mean when we talk about religion. Today I want to suggest one of the stumbling blocks to understanding religion, defining religion, or even talking about religion.

Personal faith.

'The new definition of religious freedom, and therefore religion itself, is personal faith.' Share on X

To the Supreme Court, this seems to be the definition of religion: a personal, individualized system of belief that guides an individual action.

In their decision in support of Hobby Lobby, Justice Samuel Alito set a new precedent that we all paid attention to and a second one we mostly ignored.

The opinion was both startling and puzzling. He offered a spurious idea that Hobby Lobby was not bound to give full health care to their employees because of its owners’ faith. This means that a for-profit company would count as a person when it comes to adhering to its owner’s personal faith. Even the biggest supporters of religious freedom should acknowledge that’s some pretty weak tea. But, he argued, it is about that closely held, sincere belief!

This is a confusing defense because it allows the responsibility to shift back and forth between the company and the owners, depending on the situation. This seems like pretty shaky legal ground, but I’m not a lawyer.

For more on this decision, read “Hobby Lobby decision restricts religious liberty”

But I am a priest. And that is why I see the second precedent as both galling and spiritually immature. It is also more significant to how we talk about religion.

For his opinion, Justice Alito relies on an understanding of religious freedom that is purely individualistic. It is the Green’s belief that defines their action in their own life. And it is the Green’s belief that defines the actions of their business. At no point does this regard the beliefs of any other individuals in the system, or of any association of persons.

The individualization goes even further. He argues that religion is the personal expression of belief, regardless of how one comes to those beliefs, as long as they are sincere.

Here’s what this really means.

We know that the First Amendment provides a broad sense of religious freedom under the law. This allows for the conscience of the individual and the religious organization. It grants not only liberty and autonomy, but protection and support to minority religious groups.

Think about it for a second. Jefferson was totally supportive of a person’s individual rights. So in that way Alito’s argument makes sense. Jefferson was also worried about the power of all institutions and groups, not just the government. Religious freedom was never just about a person, but about the institutional makeup of the country. Churches, the media, assembly of persons: religious freedom was always both personal and communal. Because religion itself is both.

The Hobby Lobby decision, however, seems to give a sense of untethered autonomy to individuals to exercise religion as a personal and independent expression, even when that personal religious faith impedes on a more traditional faith, as I’ve argued before. This has opened the door for the state level laws which excuse a person for discrimination: even when the one discriminated against has the support of a religious community. Even when their personal religious freedom is curtailed.

The new American definition of religious freedom, and therefore religion itself, is total, personal faith.

The proof is found in how the court has argued that faith is embodied not by the support of others, but the rejection of those in need. It is defined not by love, compassion, and community, but anger, intolerance, and bigotry. It is saying grace before meals and Christian prayers before city council. It is 10 Commandments statues at the Court House and spikes under the overpasses. It is found in criminalizing efforts to feed the hungry, but protecting the right to fire employees over sexual orientation.

It is what is spurring the anti-Syrian sentiment around the U.S. and the calls by many to close the borders.

This is what is passing for religion today. Not only in the courtrooms, but our living rooms. But this isn’t really religion. It is personal, unconnected belief.

 

At our noon service today, we celebrated Elizabeth, Princess of Hungary. Her story is fascinating to me. She was always concerned for the poor, even as she was wealthy. She lived in the castle, Wartburg, but was kicked out because of her generosity. She joined the Franciscans and gave everything of her life over to serving the poor, dying in her 20’s.

The gospel reading was from Luke (6:35-38)