New Territory

Tonight I had to chastise myself for not practicing what I preach.  In my Humanities class we often talked about not making rash comments without knowing all the details.  We talked about sweeping generalizations that can lead to misunderstanding and possibly hurt feelings.

So when I read that supporters of SB 101 wanted me and others who see this bill as legislation that could lead to discrimination, I knew they were right.  I hadn't read the bill.  I knew what was reported.  I knew how people interpreted it.  But, I failed to do what I had told my students was necessary - go to the source.

So I did.  And I have to tell you that I have never felt more inadequate.  It took me forever to get through the first part.  That was until I realize that most of it was defining terms.  I learned "granting", "governmental entity," and so many other terms and what they mean in terms of the legislation.  Still, I had the hardest time finding the actual "meat" of the bill.

At that point I figured it all out.  A bill has to be ambiguous by nature.  That way when it is challenged in the courts, the court has to take on all of the responsibility of interpreting it.  Legislators can sit back and say "that was not what was intended by the bill at all."

That means a lowly retired educator like me is left to interpret the Religious Freedom Restoration Act all by my lonesome.  So rather than head right into my interpretation of the bill, I want you to see how the General Assembly sees it:
Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer. 

Here is how I think this reads:  the government is not going to  mess with a person's religious beliefs.  I don't know how the "compelling governmental interest" fits in this, and it kind of scares me a little.  The procedure for remedying a situation is sketchy at best.  The next sentence seems to be double talk about implementing and applying.  It is the final sentence that says it all I think.  Excuse me if I interpret in terms that are more pedestrian.  It seems to say that employees, applicants, or former employees can't sue or take any legal action on the basis of religious discrimination.

Hmm.  I don't keep up with everything that is going on every day in our state, but exactly how many times has this come up in our state that our legislators had to spend so much time in passing this legislation?   I can remember one in our area regarding the loss of a job at a parochial school because of religious doctrine.  Maybe there are others, but isn't legislation supposed to make sure that a common problem of the state populous is discussed and solutions proposed, discussed, and enacted.

Well, I guess I found out that getting the facts really was the right thing to do.  I can tell you right now if I put this document out to one of my classes as  one of my rules for my class, I would be in trouble.  Two reasons - there is no way that they would understand it, and they would see it for what it is - unfair.  How do I know?  Students are never afraid to tell you that a rule is unfair.  And they would see that some of the students would be affected negatively and others would be able to get away with whatever they wanted to do.  Yep, unfair!

That's enough of that.  I will close going back to the note that I put on Facebook now that I have the facts.  I am a genealogist and passionately search out the stories of my ancestors.  They were primarily Quakers and Menonites.  If you know anything about those two groups, you know that they were discriminated against and had to find a place that they could live and practice their beliefs.  That was America.  It is amazing that we now see that the legislative body in Indiana can allow a bill to be enacted that, in the disguise of Religious Freedom, can take us back in time.

My hope is that the law is so ambiguous that it is seldom used, but I have lived through this legislature's last good ideas - charter schools and vouchers.  Though there has been no proof that either program has improved education in the state of Indiana, both still march on unimpeded.  Was there an agenda with the education reform? Absolutely, I don't think anyone can doubt that now.  Is there an agenda behind this new legislation?  Probably.

Why do I care?  Because I have three fantastic grandchildren (soon to be four) who will have to inherit what is being done now.  They don't deserve the world that legislation like this promotes.

So what can we do.  It is very simple - vote and speak up for everyone's rights.  It is time to tell our politicians that we want our state back, and we want laws that reflect Hoosier values.  Both of my grandfathers were Methodist ministers, and my value system comes directly from them through my parents.  We must value all humans for who they are, even legislators.