Our Colorado secretary of state’s office has apparently taken a break from suppressing the vote and fabricating figures for “voter fraud,” and has found the time to approve the text of yet another proposed ballot issue to amend our state constitution.
This means the petitions can start circulating for the “Colorado Religious Freedom Amendment,” and if they get enough signatures, it will appear on our November ballot.
It should be noted that for the past 136 years, Article II, Section 4 of the Colorado Constitution has provided that “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.”
That sounds sensible, but it’s not enough for Focus on the Family, the main mover behind the proposed amendment. Here’s the text:
“1) Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s freedom of religion.
“2) A person or religious organization’s right to act or refusal to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling interest in infringing upon the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
“3) A burden includes indirect burdens such a withholding of one or more benefits, assessing one or more penalties, exclusion from one or more government programs, and/or exclusion from one or more government facilities.”
This could lead to all sorts of interesting litigation.
For instance, killing livestock is legal, although often it’s regulated by zoning. So if your neighbor took up sacrificing bulls in his back yard to placate Poseidon, and you pointed to some oppressive local zoning ordinance as a reason he should stop the sacrifices, would that ordinance be a burden on his sincere religious beliefs?
Or if a Zoroastrian who lives in the woods insists on maintaining her sacred fire even after the county sheriff has banned outdoor blazes on account of low humidity and high winds, is she being so burdened that she must be allowed to start a destructive wildfire?
During this Civil War sesquicentennial, I’ve been reading material from 150 years ago, with Confederate Christians pointing out how slavery was approved by the Bible, especially if the slaves were black people allegedly descended from Noah’s son Ham, whose descendants were cursed to be “servant of servants” and “bondsmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water.”
It cannot be doubted that this was a “sincerely held religious belief,” given the thousands of men who died while bearing arms in defense of chattel slavery.
As you can see, it’s simple to turn “sincerely held religious belief” into a means of oppressing your fellow citizens. And maybe that’s the goal of this amendment, since our current constitution contains ample protection for religious liberty.
Perhaps some supporter from Focus on the Family can explain just why we need another amendment. Or should we figure it’s to protect a future Warren Jeffs from being prosecuted for his multiple child brides?
Freelance columnist Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a regular contributor to The Denver Post.
