Posts Tagged ‘Religious Freedom’

A Limited Victory for Religious Freedom

Monday, June 4th, 2018

The Supreme Court ruled today, by a wide majority of 7 to 2, in one of its most anticipated cases of the session, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The result was a victory for the particular religious liberty claim raised by the owner of the shop, Jack Philips. But this victory was limited by the Court’s very fact-specific ruling, and it’s explicit statement that there is no guarantee that future cases will be handled the same way.

The facts are fairly simple. In 2012, prior to the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Colorado and the United States in general, two men approached Mr. Phillips and asked him to create a cake for their upcoming “wedding”. Mr. Phillips declined, saying that he did not create cakes for same-sex weddings, even though he would serve same-sex couples for other occasions. It’s important to note that Mr. Phillips views his business not just a profit-making venture. Rather, he says that his “main goal in life is to be obedient to” Jesus Christ and Christ’s “teachings in all aspects of his life” and he seeks to “honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop.” So his refusal to participate and celebrate the same-sex “wedding” was an expression of his deeply-held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

A complaint was brought against Mr. Phillips, claiming that he was violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation. The case went before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for decision. The Commission ruled against Mr. Phillips, as did the Colorado Court of Appeals. That’s what brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court paid very close attention to what happened before the Commission. The Court noted,

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

In fact, the Commission had also heard three other cases recently that were relevant to Mr. Phillips’ case. In each of those cases, the Commission had ruled that bakers could refuse to create cakes with religious statements against homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” because the bakers found those statements “offensive”. The Court found this disparate treatment to be explicable only by the Commission’s hostility to Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs. The Court concluded,

The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.

If there is anything that the First Amendment religion clauses stand for, it’s that government cannot favor certain viewpoints or punish others because the government officials have particular preferences. The Constitution demands that everyone be treated even-handedly, even if certain powerful people find the religious views involved to be “offensive”. The Court found that the Commission had not treated Mr. Phillips fairly because it disapproved of his religious views.

It is also important that, as the Court noted, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” This directly rejected the Colorado courts’ finding that his creation of wedding cakes did not qualify as “speech” because it was “not sufficiently expressive”. In a strong concurrence, Justice Thomas explained this error in detail.

While it is certainly a significant legal victory for Mr. Phillips (and for Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented him), the significance of this case is muted by the Court’s fact-based analysis and their specific caveat that future cases may come out differently. It is unfortunate that the Court did not explicitly adopt Justice Thomas’ broader view of religiously-motivated expressive conduct as a form of protected free speech. And it is also regrettable that the Court did not repudiate the position, taken by some state courts, that whenever there is a conflict between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, religion will always lose.

This decision does not mean, as some critics will undoubtedly argue, that religious people have a “license to discriminate”. But it does affirm that religious people are entitled to a fair hearing by a neutral decision-maker, and that overt hostility to religious belief is still forbidden. And that is clearly a victory for religious freedom.

Intolerance in Philadelphia

Friday, May 18th, 2018

The City of Philadelphia plays a central role in the story of American freedom. It was the location of the writing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the colony of Pennsylvania was notable for its religious toleration. It’s too bad that the current city government is now ignoring that legacy by violating the religious liberty of the Catholic Church.

The basic facts are very simple. There is a crisis in the foster care system in the City of Philadelphia. You recall that foster care serves some of the most vulnerable children in our society — victims of abuse or neglect, frequently with very serious medical and psychological challenges. There are approximately 6,000 children in Philadelphia’s foster care system, awaiting placement in a foster home. The City issued a call for new foster families, but then banned one of the oldest and most successful agencies, Catholic Social Services, from placing any children into foster homes.

The reason? The City of Philadelphia disapproves of the Catholic Church’s belief and teaching that the best place for a child to be raised is in a home with a married mother and father, and thus the refusal of Catholic agencies to place foster children with same-sex couples.

There are some important things to note. CCS does not discriminate against any child based on their sexual orientation. CCS will refer same-sex couples to one of the 26 other agencies that place children in foster homes. There are foster families, certified through CCS, who are ready and able to foster right now, but the City won’t allow the placement. Nobody has ever filed a complaint against CCS based on its religious mission, and its religious beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a home. And there is a history of bias against the Church — powerful city officials, including the mayor, have made numerous bitterly critical statements against the Church and the Archbishop of Philadelphia because of our religious beliefs about marriage and human sexuality.

The Church’s teaching on this is quite clear:

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality… As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood… This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 7)

And the duty of Catholic organizations not to cooperate with this is also quite clear:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. (5)

Becket, the stalwart defenders of religious liberty, has filed suit against the City of Philadelphia. This should be a fairly easy case, considering that just last year the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government cannot deny generally-available public benefits to a religious organization purely because of their religious beliefs. In that case, the Court said plainly, “[A] law targeting religious beliefs as such is never permissible.” This is not a new doctrine. Fifty years ago, the Court said “The State may not adopt programs or practices . . . which ‘aid or oppose’ any religion. . . . This prohibition is absolute.” Apparently these decisions were not read by the government of the City of Philadelphia.

Yet the usual voices from the forces of intolerance are being heard, with all the usual false accusations and incorrect statements of fact, law and principle. Some examples:

  • “This is just bare hatred of gay couples.”
This is a strange argument, since the whole purpose of the foster care system is to consider the best interests of the child, not the interests or desires of prospective foster parents. The Church’s position is based on love of the child, and concern for the best way to assure their welfare and development.
  • “If they don’t want to follow the government’s rules, they should get out of the foster care business.”
As we noted above, there is such a thing as the First Amendment, which guarantees both the free exercise of religion and protection from the establishment of religion. This means that the government cannot reward or penalize a church — no playing favorites based on preferred doctrines. By directly penalizing the Catholic Church for our religious beliefs, the City has, in effect, established a definition of acceptable religious beliefs — and those that they will not tolerate. That’s totally out of bounds under the First Amendment.
  • “The agency isn’t being asked to do anything other than implement the rules set down by the government.”
Private organizations aren’t mindless puppets of the state. A foster care agency has to evaluate individual cases for the suitability of placement of individual children into individual homes. This takes discretion and adherence to particular principles, including the teachings of the Church mentioned above on the best interests of children. If the agency feels it cannot do that, it will refer the children and parents to another agency. Plus, we again have to remember the existence of the First Amendment, which says that churches are not mere instruments of the state. They are independent, and their internal affairs cannot be interfered with by the government.
  • “They’d rather the children suffer in orphanages than allow gay couples to foster them.”
No child is living in an orphanage, a la Oliver Twist, and there are 26 other agencies that are perfectly free to certify gay couples and place children with them. Since there are so many alternatives, why must the City insist on ideological submission by CCS?
  • “Haven’t Christian adoption agencies shut down just to prevent gay people from adopting?”
Catholic adoption agencies have been forced out of business in a number of places (Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Illinois) — state agencies denied them licenses because they disapproved of Catholic beliefs. What Philadelphia is doing is another example of the same kind of intolerance. Catholic Charities wants to conduct its affairs in keeping with our faith, while other agencies can operate according to their principles and place children with same-sex couples.
  • “Isn’t this the same as refusing to place kids in interracial homes?”
Race is completely different from sexual orientation — it has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature and structure of a family and the right of a child to have a mother and father to raise them. It’s interesting that in some states, like New York, agencies are required to give preference to placing children with adoptive parents of the same religion. Some people have argued that race and ethnicity  should also be considered. If it’s okay to consider those factors, why can’t Catholic agencies consider a religion-based factor that we consider important for the well-being of a child?
  • This is just another example of the Church trying to impose their morality on others.
Who’s using political and financial power to push forward an agenda? Who’s doing that based on a moral and political judgment about human sexuality and marriage? Answer — it’s the City of Philadelphia that’s using its political power to impose its morality. They’re the ones who have decided that CCS is morally unfit to place foster children. The Church is just asking to be left alone to operate our foster care agency according to our religious beliefs, which puts a burden on absolutely nobody.

The point here isn’t whether people think that children should be placed in foster homes with same-sex couples. It also isn’t whether people agree with the Church on this issue or not — in fact, I imagine that the vast majority of Americans don’t agree. The point here is that an intolerant government is using its political power to enforce ideological conformity upon a religious organization that dares to dissent from current sexual orthodoxy. All Americans, regardless of what they think about the underlying issues, should be appalled by this abuse of power.

It’s an interesting irony that this is happening in Philadelphia. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence in that city later became President. While serving in that office, he received a letter from some Catholic nuns in New Orleans who were worried that they would lose title to their property after the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase territory. The letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote to them is worth quoting in full:

I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana. The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority. Whatever diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under. Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.

How far we have come from those days, when the “inalienable right” of freedom of religion was assured by such generous and liberal words – and by a man who was not a religious believer himself. Too bad that the city government of Philadelphia hasn’t learned that lesson.

What’s at Stake in the Cake Case

Monday, December 4th, 2017

A very important religious liberty and free speech case will be argued before the United States Supreme Court tomorrow. It involves a wedding cake artist, Jack Phillips, who does business in Colorado under the name Masterpiece Cakes. This decision will go a long way to determining how much freedom we will have to dissent from the current cultural orthodoxy — and not just on issues of “gay rights”.

A few years ago, before same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Colorado, Mr. Phillips was approached by two men who were planning a “wedding” in another state, and wanted to have a reception in Colorado. They asked him to bake and decorate a custom wedding cake for them. Mr. Phillips declined, citing his Christian faith and his beliefs about the true nature of marriage, and said that he could not use his artistic talent to promote an event that was contrary to his faith. The State of Colorado, acting through its Civil Rights Commission, took a dim view of Mr. Phillips’ religious objection and ruled that the state’s “public accommodation” law prohibited him from discriminating against a customer on the basis of sexual orientation.

The case has now been appealed through the courts and has now reached the Supreme Court. Mr. Phillips has two main arguments. First, he is arguing that being forced to decorate the wedding cake violates his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion by requiring him to participate in an event that is contrary to his faith (the “wedding” reception). His second argument is based on the premise that his artistic cake decorations are a form of speech, so he should not be coerced into saying something that he does not wish to say (that this relationship is in fact a “marriage”).  Colorado is countering by denying that cake decorating is a form of speech or expressive conduct, and by contending that the state’s interest in eliminating discrimination outweighs Mr. Phillips’ right to free exercise of religion.

Our mainstream culture has adopted the notion that gay rights should trump all other legal interests. It holds that “error has no rights” when it comes to the newly-minted notion of same-sex “marriage”, and any dissident is a bigot with no rights bound to be respected by enlightened folk. The advocates for these views have been very busy whipping up fear and loathing and  predicting all sorts of deplorable consequences if Mr. Phillips wins. They have also been misrepresenting what the law actually is, and substituting their “wishful thinking” theory of what they want the law to be.

The Supreme Court’s prior rulings on the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment make it clear that the government cannot easily impose laws upon people when they pose a serious conflict with the person’s religious beliefs or when they suppress their speech.  In other words, when a person claims a religious exemption or a free speech protection they are not breaking the law — they are merely asserting their basic human and constitutional rights.  If the government or a private party fails to recognize those rights, they are the ones who are breaking the law, not the religious believer.

Examples abound in both speech and religion cases, such as the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of Jehovah Witnesses to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In that case, the Court made a famous statement of principle: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” In another case involving the right to say things that people found offensive, the Court said, “the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense”.

Cases happen all the time that involve conflicts between free speech and religious freedom rights against other legal interests of the government or private parties. Every state and the federal government has a law that requires employers to give reasonable accommodations to employees if their work conditions violate their religious beliefs. The recent Supreme Court decisions in the challenges to the HHS Mandate (principally the Hobby Lobby case in 2014) affirmed the idea that burdens on a person’s religious belief can warrant an exemption from the law. In recent years the Supreme Court has also upheld a church’s ability to hire and fire its ministers, the right of a prisoner to grow a beard required by his faith, and the right of a prospective employee to wear a head covering mandated by her faith. In the lower courts, there have been hundreds of lawsuits where employers are required to recognize religious holidays or clothing, cities are banned from restricting street-corner evangelists, schools are prevented from closing religious clubs or newspapers, etc. There have been numerous free speech cases that carefully protected people’s right to express themselves without government censorship.

The current law has certain characteristics that we need to understand if we are to appreciate the Cake Case and to separate the wheat from the chaff in the opinions of pundits and commentators:

  • The law requires judges to actually judge, and make fact-based case-by-case evaluations.There’s no blanket rule favoring anyone. So the claim by advocates that a ruling for Mr. Phillips will create a universal “get out of the law free card” for religious believers shows a complete lack of faith in our court system to do its job. It’s also not supported by any evidence that religious liberty or free speech claims win every case — in fact, the studies show quite the contrary.
  • It rejects the “tough luck” approach under which the religious person automatically always loses. Enemies of religion may wish it were otherwise, but the law has long recognized that there actually is some legitimacy to religious beliefs and that they occasionally have to be protected. In fact, studies show that in recent years that religious liberty plaintiffs win about half of the cases that are brought claiming a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and three-quarters of free speech cases. Legislatures also routinely grant religious exemptions. The sky has not yet fallen.
  • It protects against slippery slopes. Back to our original principle — our current law relies on judges being judges and making sensible distinctions between cases and to apply the rules sensibly. There has been no outpouring of religious liberty cases or massive instances of nullification of generally applicable laws. The study noted above found that there has been no significant change in the way the law is applied since the Hobby Lobby case in 2014, which upheld the religious freedom of a family business to refuse to comply with the HHS Mandate.
  • It does not require you give up your religious freedom by engaging in business. This has been settled law for decades. The Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby implicitly recognized it just a couple of years ago. In an earlier case, the court said: “It is well settled that a speaker’s rights are not lost merely because compensation is received; a speaker is no less a speaker because he or she is paid to speak.” Being in business doesn’t mean that Mr. Phillips suddenly became a second-class citizen.
  • It recognizes and protects against objections based on insincere religious beliefs. Such claims will inevitably happen. But again, the law trusts that judges will actually judge and discern which claims are legitimate and which are frivolous. Judges have been doing this for many years, and there’s no reason to believe that they will suddenly lose that ability if Mr. Phillips prevails.
  • It will not silence people’s speech just because somebody else is offended or it hurts their dignity. This is also well-established law. Our right to free speech does not stop when others’ sensibilities come into play. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to “offensive speech”, including the right of Nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood, the KKK to burn a cross, and a fringe anti-gay group to protest at soldiers’ funerals. The risk of hurt feelings is a price of freedom. Plus, why does the dignity of the gay couple have more legal weight than Mr. Phillips’ dignity and integrity?

Our nation was built on the notion of the inherent rights of individuals to live free from undue government control. That freedom applies to all sorts of people, including and especially those whose opinions are not favored by the majority and powerful. Mr. Phillips is defending his ability to make his cakes and decorate them as he pleases. Even those who disagree with him should defend that right.

A Major Victory for Religious Freedom

Friday, October 6th, 2017

After years of regulatory and courtroom battling, the Government has finally recognized that it was a violation of religious liberty to impose what we have long called the “HHS Mandate” on those with religious objections to contraception, abortion-causing drugs and sterilization. That mandate was cooked out of thin air by the previous Administration under the purported authority of the Affordable Care Act. The current Administration has now issued new rules that give relief to religious and other organizations, as well as individuals.

This is a major victory, and we should express our gratitude to the President and his Administration, particularly those in the Department of Health and Human Services.

The sweep of the new rules is very broad. First, the admission that the original (and the many revised) rules violated the religious freedom of institutions and individuals (direct quotations from the new proposed rules are in italics):

  • “We have concluded that requiring certain objecting entities or individuals to choose between the Mandate, the accommodation, or penalties for noncompliance imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise under RFRA.” This corrects the error of the previous Administration, which stubbornly insisted that the Mandate did not impose a burden on religious belief.
  • “Our reconsideration of these issues has also led us to conclude… that the Mandate imposes a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of individual employees who oppose contraceptive coverage and would be able to obtain a plan that omits contraception…” Under the original Mandate, individuals with religious objections had no hope of any relief.
  • “the Departments have concluded that the application of the Mandate to entities with sincerely held religious objections to it does not serve a compelling governmental interest.”This is a huge concession, and reverses the adamant — and hardly credible — insistence by the previous Administration that riding roughshod over the religious objections served a vital public interest.
  • “In the Departments’ view, a broader exemption is a more direct, effective means of satisfying all bona fide religious objectors.” Note the new emphasis here of actually showing respect for religious objectors, instead of brushing them aside, which was the attitude of the previous Administration.

Now, the specifics, which also show a broad desire to protect religious liberty:

  • “With respect to employers that sponsor group health plans, the new language… provides exemptions for employers that object to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptives or sterilization and related patient education and counseling based on sincerely held religious beliefs.” This is the most significant provision, because it allows all employers with religious organizations to opt out of the offensive coverage without going through any bureaucratic process.
  • “Consistent with the restated exemption, exempt entities will not be required to comply with a self-certification process.” This removes one of the most objectionable provisions of the previous Mandate, which essentially required religious organizations to give a permission slip for offensive services to be provided — putting them in direct cooperation with evil.
  • “the Departments do not limit the Guidelines exemption with reference to nonprofit status… the rules extend the exemption to the plans of closely held for-profit entities. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby… the rules extend the exemption to the plans of for-profit entities that are not closely held.” This is a huge expansion of the exemption, because it will not just be limited to organizations that are non-profit or to those for-profit entities that satisfy standards that vary from state to state to determine if they are “closely held”.
  • “These interim final rules extend the exemption… to health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage that sincerely hold their own religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services.” This would also allow insurance companies with religious values to operate, providing a potential safe harbor from these and other morally offensive measures.
  • “This individual exemption allows plan sponsors and issuers that do not specifically object to contraceptive coverage to offer religiously acceptable coverage to their participants or subscribers who do object, while offering coverage that includes contraception to participants or subscribers who do not object.” Another major victory, this would permit — but not require — insurers to offer objecting individuals to opt out of the offensive coverage.

This is the result of steadfast opposition and litigation by many organizations and individuals who refused to surrender their religious principles  to over-reaching, ideologically-driven government regulation. Particuarly worthy of mention are the great defenders of religious freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom and Becket.

We can legitimately celebrate this victory, and thank God that our government has shown a new-found respect for our first and most precious freedom.

A Religious Liberty Failure

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

It is often difficult to know what to make of this very strange Administration. Every day seems to bring a new self-generated controversy and it is often difficult to discern what is going on and why.

Sometimes, though, it is very clear what has happened — or more accurately, what has not happened. The case in point is the alleged religious liberty executive order issued last week to great fanfare. It was a splendid photo op, with the President surrounded by Catholic prelates, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other religious leaders. The President spoke wonderful words about how committed our government is to defending religious liberty. There were smiles all around and much applause.

The problem is that the executive order is virtually useless, it accomplishes nothing, it misses an opportunity to implement important reforms, and it delivers nothing more than vague promises of possible future actions at undefined times.

The order contains six paragraphs. The first contains hortatory language about the importance of religious liberty, which is virtually indistinguishable from proclamations issued by the prior Administration. The last two paragraphs deal with legal procedure that has no particular importance. The middle three paragraphs is where the substance is supposed to be, but isn’t.

Paragraph 2 purports to grant legal protection to the free speech of religious non-profits and churchs that are incorporated under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It directs the Treasury Department not to enforce a legal provision known as the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits those organizations from engaging in partisan political activity such as open endorsement of candidates. Opinions differ about the Johnson Amendment. I happen to think it’s a good idea but many others disagree. The problem is, though, that the government has virtually never enforced that provision and the President can’t do anything to change the law itself — it can only be repealed by an act of Congress. Future administrations could easily begin enforcing the rule at any time — which would be particularly dangerous for any organization that foolishly relies on this executive order and begins engaging in partisan politics.

So this part of the executive order is actually completely devoid of any real content. It’s merely a promise not to do something that isn’t being done, without preventing it from being done in the future. Hold your applause.

Paragraph 3 is a particularly frustrating diappointment to those of us who have been battling over religious liberty the past few years, especially over the HHS contraception and abortion mandate. That is the cause of voluminous litigation that culminated in a directive from the Supreme Court that the government find some way to accommodate the religious liberty concerns of religious non-profits who object to the mandate. This executive order directs the relevant agencies to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections”.

“Consider”? That’s all? Remember, you can’t overturn statutes or regulations with a mere executive order, so the HHS mandate and its offensive non-exemption continues to be the law of the land. But the President, with the stroke of a pen or even with a mere oral order, could easily have directed the Justice Department to immediately settle all the litigation by granting the religious non-profits the same full exemption that is enjoyed by churches, and further directing the relevant agencies to develop regulations that would formalize that settlement into law. That would have resolved the HHS mandate controversy completely and it would have established a strong precedent for further conscience protection laws and regulations.

This is a tragic missed opportunity, and it directly calls into question the Administration’s competence and/or its sincerity about protecting religious freedom. It is a complete and absolute failure to follow through on explicit campaign promises — somehave even called it a betrayal.

Paragraph 4 is hardly worth mentioning. It directs the Attorney General to “issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections”. This won’t come any time soon, since virtually no sub-cabinet Justice Department officials have been confirmed by the Senate and there isn’t even a nominee for the head of the crucial Civil Rights Division. And in any event, “guidance” does not have the same force of law as regulations or statutes, it does not have to be accepted by the courts and it can be overturned at any time by this or any future Administration. So this is another post-dated check for something that may be delivered someday by someone. Yawn.

This much bally-hooed executive order is a major failure. It provides no actual protection for religious freedom. It does nothing to change the law. It does nothing to reverse the hostility of the prior Administration towards those with traditional religious beliefs. It does nothing to protect religious contractors from discrimination by government agencies that disapprove of their beliefs. It is such a non-starter that even the ACLU has decided that it’s not worth challenging in court.

Many people, particularly religious conservatives, supported the President because they rightly feared the consequences for religious liberty if Hillary Clinton had been elected. But the President’s executive order uttely fails to deliver on expectations for imporoved protection of religious liberty. All we can hope is that the Administration will eventually get its act together, appoint good people to crucial executive positions, and implement concrete reforms to statutes and regulations that will give genuine and lasting protection to people and organizations of faith. Meanwhile, despite all the fanfare in the Rose Garden, the very real threats to religious freedom remain.