POLITICS

Faiths divided over Indiana's 'religious freedom' bill

Stephanie Wang
stephanie.wang@indystar.com
The Rev. Melody Merida (left) of LifeJourney Church in Indianapolis spoke Wednesday, March 4, 2015, at a Freedom Indiana faith vigil at Roberts Park United Methodist Church. She was accompanied by her wife, Kristin Herrmann (holding their son, Brody Herrmann). The vigil was organized to protest a “religious freedom” proposal now before the Indiana House.

For a Southern Baptist pastor bound to his Bible, the legal protections around religious freedom do not go far enough. Without further safeguarding, he fears he could be forced to wed a gay couple against his beliefs.

For a Christian minister, further enshrinement of religion in state law could turn her son away from a hospital, prevent him from joining a T-ball team or stop her family from adopting another child — because she is married to another woman, because she wears a clergy collar or because she has a mixed-race family.

Faith leaders across the state are split on Indiana's most contentious political issue this year: a proposal to strengthen "religious freedom" protections in state law.

The proposal, Senate Bill 101, would prohibit state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise religion — unless the government can show it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. It mirrors the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

SB 101 has passed the Indiana Senate and likely will be debated in the House in the coming weeks.

On one side of the highly polarized debate are those who support the bill and think it intends to shield religious practices. Opposing it are those who think it essentially will legalize discrimination — particularly against gay people — in the name of religious freedom.

"Does one way to practice religion get the right to trample another one?" asked the Rev. Melody Merida of LifeJourney Church in Indianapolis. "My faith is not a threat to anyone's religious freedom. And my family is no threat to anyone's religious freedom."

At a Freedom Indiana faith vigil Wednesday night to oppose the proposal, several local leaders said they already enjoy religious liberty.

"Beware things that claim to restore what already exists," said Christian Theological Seminary President Matthew Myer Boulton, later adding, "We have to stand as people of faith against any claim that anyone is second-class."

In loving your neighbor, he said, don't ask who is your neighbor and whom you can exclude.

"The challenge for all of us is to love even across those lines of difference," Boulton said. He referenced a parallel idea in the Quran: "Want for your brother or sister what you would want for yourself."

But the religious freedom proposal has cleaved divisions between political parties and religious denominations, and it has caused separations within congregations. The spectrum of interpretations of religions, including Christianity and Judaism, lead to different perspectives on homosexuality, for example, and different stances on how closely to observe religion.

"I don't think the Jewish community is monolithic on this particular issue," said David Sklar, director of government affairs for the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council.

Still, the council is taking a stance against the religious freedom bill, he said, because "we're afraid RFRA is going to potentially cloud the situation and further entangle religion with the state and with the court system."

"We feel like there are adequate protections for religious minorities," he added. "We are able to practice the way that we want and have the ability to do that now — and have the ability to ensure that there is proper freedom in the future."

But others, such as like Pastor Tim Overton, who leads Halteman Village Baptist Church in Muncie, aren't so certain that their religious rights would be preserved.

"When you're told as a business by the government you have to provide a service, and that service is in violation of your core convictions, that is a problem," Overton said.

He cited a case in support of religious freedom laws in which one such law allowed an American Indian student to wear his hair long even though a school's dress code prohibited it.

But opponents say the state's religious freedom proposal also could be used to refuse service to an unmarried man and woman sitting together in a restaurant, or to a woman with an uncovered head — if that goes against business owners' religious beliefs.

Much of the debate has centered on providing wedding services for gay couples.

"There are those who want to say if I were to refuse to do a gay wedding that I am discriminating," Overton said. "I don't think I should be compelled to use my speech to support someone else's speech."

"A lot of times," he added, "people think pastors are free to do whatever they want. And we're not. We're under the Lord. We're only free to do what he wants us to do."

Still, Indiana University law professor Daniel Conkle, who specializes in religion and supports the state RFRA proposal, said the heart of the religious freedom issue gets lost amid ardent arguing. He said that in all court cases across the country involving gay couples' wedding services — including in states that already have similar laws in place — judges have overwhelmingly rejected businesses' arguments for religious exemptions.

"RFRA would essentially itself provide a definition of what counts as religious freedom," Conkle said. "That's why the definition becomes so important. That is the standard that the law would adopt."

Star reporter Tony Cook contributed to this story.

Call Star reporter Stephanie Wang at (317) 444-6184. Follow her on Twitter: @stephaniewang.