The new (religious) face of civil disobedience
A resurgent sanctuary movement may complicate the precepts of the Christian right
September 7, 2014 6:00AM ET
by Sanford Levinson
How are the young refugees fleeing from violence in Central America connected to contraception?
In June’s Hobby Lobby decision, a sharply divided Supreme Court interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to require the exemption of an incorporated business owned by conservative Christians from the duty imposed by the Affordable Care Act to offer health insurance policies covering contraception. Hobby Lobby sparked a national discussion about the degree to which religious belief should mandate exemptions from complying with legislation. Unsurprisingly, the debate has divided sharply along liberal and conservative lines. Conservatives tend to endorse religious freedom and liberals emphasize — often using the language of democracy — the duty of all Americans to obey the law.
But different issues — from the children crossing our borders, fleeing oppressive circumstances in Central America, to the plight of poor people without regular access to medical care — are now complicating that divide.
The standard conservative responses, of course, haven’t disappeared. Many conservatives, typified by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have labeled the Central American children “illegals” and demanded swift deportation. Another Texas conservative, Gov. Rick Perry, has vociferously refused to join the enhanced national Medicaid program. But it is becoming clearer that neither of these politicians, both carrying presidential ambitions, unequivocally speaks for conservatives. And interestingly, their critics increasingly speak the language of religious belief and obligation.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/religion-sanctuarymovementimmigrationrefugeespoverty.html
