What IS Religious Freedom?

I've noted before on this blog that I'm not a 'religious' person, meaning that I don't belong to a church or attend services regularly or anything like that. I do try to live life according to the golden rule, to be ethical and fair and non-judgmental (even while admitting that the last part can be really hard).

And I think even if I were a religious person, I would struggle with what passes for 'religious freedom' these days.

The Mississippi State Flag

It now seems we can pretty much say anything is a deeply held religious belief, and using that we can discriminate and get away with it, at least in Mississippi. But not in Arizona?  I get so confused.

Arizona, as you may know, had a very public battle regarding a bill that would allow a company that had 'deeply held religious beliefs' to not participate in certain business transactions if they did not like who the customer slept with. That's obviously minimizing it, but that's the gist of the move behind their law, which came about as a result of actions in other states -- not Arizona -- regarding a business owner not wanting to engage in commerce with gays.

The Arizona bill was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, in part because she believes there are more important things for the government to be focused on -- and I wholeheartedly agree on that -- and because the law could do more harm than good to her state. I agree with her on that account as well.  (You can read more here.)

Mississippi's bill moved through the legislature without a whole lot of notice -- certainly nothing like what played out in Arizona.  I'll be honest, until I saw that it passed, I wasn't aware it was even being considered.

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, who signed that state's religious freedom bill (SB2681) last week,  noted he was

proud to sign the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act today which will protect the individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from government interference.  Mississippi has now joined 18 other states to defend religious freedoms on a state level. 

Under the bill, 'exercise of religion' is defined as "the exercise of religion under the First Amendment", which as we know simply states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Also buried in the bill is a statement indicating that

Nothing in this act shall create any rights by an employee against an employer if the employer is not the government.

So an employer does not need to allow an employee to face east and pray, or to chant in the break room, or to wear a tallit or yarmulke, or to use Rosary beads, for example?  And that company can close their doors to any customer they like, as long as that closure is based on a First Amendment application of religious freedom?  Which seems to mean that people don't have religious freedom, but employers do?  Is this another one of those 'corporations are people too' things?   As I said, I get so confused.

What's not confusing is the statement below, which is prominently displayed on the main page of Governor Bryant's official web page, under the headline Rising Together

I call on every Mississippian, no matter what our race or region or party, to rise above our petty differences and build together the Mississippi our citizens deserve. Let us go forward from this time and place, unafraid to make the bold changes that will help us rise together. 

I guess now Mississippi is the Mississippi the citizens deserve.

That rising together thing, well, I think that'll have to wait until people are done using their religion as an excuse.