Indiana's Religious Freedom Law: A Dead Conscience Is a Danger We Must Resist
The uproar over Indiana's religious freedom law pits the individual conscience against the "public ethic," with the word bigotry thrown in for added intensity. But in leaving no room for religious convictions, as critics of the law would have it, are we heading toward demanding that people's conscience be restrained or killed if they step outside of their home?
One scenario of the intersection of public good and private convictions is creating a dichotomy. We have people arguing that personal and religious convictions end once a person crosses the threshold of their private residence or place of worship, giving way to obedience to a "public ethic." This "public ethic" rules whether or not the individual agrees.
In this case, people of religious faith must keep their views to themselves and submit to a "public ethic," codified in a variety of laws and guidelines. For the most part, this definition works fine because most laws do not directly contradict core religious convictions.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
But what happens when the "public ethic" conflicts with the private and religious beliefs of the individual, violating an essential conviction of conscience?
This leads to a second scenario where the private convictions of individual are "portable" and travel with the individual wherever he or she might go – refusing to be confined in the home or houses of worship.
In this case, individual conscience and convictions are allowed to shape how a person relates to other citizens, how the individual functions in the work place, and how a person engages in commerce. Again, this definition has worked well because most of the time the public and private worlds of the individual have been to some degree amenable to each other.
However, in recent years the stakes have been raised. The issues are no longer the minor issues of "right of way," "eminent domain," or obtaining a business license. Now the issues strike at the heart of essential values.
For example, while abortion is the "law of the land," said laws have not resolved the issue. In fact, there is a rising tide of pro-life sentiment in this country based on religious conviction and private conscience that no law has been able to dictate or deny. The issues surrounding sexual ethics are not minor issues either. They are essential issues that raise grave concerns for those who hold very specific religious convictions and/or concerns of private conscience.
My opinion is if we're going to make room for same-sex marriage and a total redefinition of all things sexual then we also need to make room for those who disagree with those redefinitions based upon religious convictions and notions of private conscience. To do any less is to violate and ignore the conscience, and a conscience that is continually violated and ignored dies. And a dead conscience is a danger all of us must resist.
