Religious freedom protects power
Religious freedom has been weaponized into the most effective legal shield for institutional power in modern democracies. What began as protection for individual conscience has evolved into institutional immunity from democratic oversight.
──── The immunity transformation
Religious freedom originally protected individuals from state persecution for their beliefs. Today, it primarily protects institutions from accountability for their actions.
Hobby Lobby uses religious freedom to deny contraceptive coverage to employees. Religious schools invoke it to discriminate in hiring and admissions. Faith-based adoption agencies deploy it to exclude LGBTQ+ families.
The shift is profound: from protecting the powerless against the powerful to protecting the powerful against democratic constraints.
Religious freedom has become institutional armor.
──── The scale advantage
Large religious institutions have captured religious freedom discourse because they have resources to litigate and lobby that individual believers lack.
The Catholic Church spends millions on legal challenges to maintain tax exemptions while influencing political outcomes. Evangelical megachurches use religious freedom to shield financial practices from scrutiny while accumulating political influence.
Individual believers seeking actual religious protection—Muslims facing workplace discrimination, Native Americans defending sacred sites—receive far less institutional support for their religious freedom claims.
The discourse serves institutional power, not individual conscience.
──── Economic immunity zones
Religious institutions have created economic spaces exempt from normal regulatory oversight:
Tax exemption allows religious organizations to accumulate wealth without transparency requirements that apply to other nonprofits. Employment discrimination lets religious organizations ignore labor protections that constrain secular employers.
Property development under religious auspices bypasses zoning restrictions and environmental regulations. Financial operations receive reduced scrutiny compared to secular organizations handling similar amounts of money.
Religious freedom creates regulatory arbitrage opportunities that benefit institutional wealth accumulation.
──── The conscience inflation problem
“Religious conscience” has expanded from personal belief to institutional policy preference.
Corporate conscience allows business owners to impose their religious views on employees. Professional conscience lets service providers deny services based on religious objections.
Institutional conscience permits religious organizations to claim conscience violations for any policy they oppose, regardless of connection to core religious doctrine.
The boundary between genuine religious belief and political preference has been deliberately obscured.
──── Political capture mechanisms
Religious freedom has become a political weapon disguised as a civil liberty:
Republican politicians use religious freedom rhetoric to justify policies that serve conservative political goals regardless of their connection to actual religious practice.
Democratic politicians struggle to oppose religious freedom claims without appearing anti-religious, even when those claims serve obvious political purposes.
Religious freedom discourse has captured political debate by making opposition appear illegitimate.
──── The establishment clause evasion
Religious institutions use religious freedom claims to evade Establishment Clause restrictions:
Government funding flows to religious organizations through “faith-based initiatives” that would violate church-state separation if framed differently.
Public policy gets shaped by religious organizations that claim both religious freedom protection and the right to influence government while maintaining tax-exempt status.
Educational policy incorporates religious perspectives in public schools through “religious accommodation” rather than direct establishment.
Religious freedom provides a constitutional backdoor for religious establishment.
──── International power projection
Religious freedom becomes a tool of international power projection:
U.S. foreign policy uses religious freedom as justification for intervention in countries with different religious-political arrangements.
International religious freedom reports selectively criticize countries based on geopolitical considerations rather than consistent religious freedom standards.
Religious NGOs receive government funding to promote “religious freedom” that aligns with U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Religious freedom discourse serves imperial purposes.
──── The marketplace exemption
Religious organizations claim both market participation and market exemption:
Religious hospitals compete for patients and government contracts while claiming exemption from medical standards that apply to secular hospitals.
Religious schools seek government voucher money while maintaining hiring discrimination that would be illegal for schools receiving public funds.
Religious charities compete for government grants while claiming religious freedom to discriminate in service provision.
They want market benefits without market responsibilities.
──── Selective enforcement patterns
Religious freedom protection varies dramatically based on the religion and the power it represents:
Christian institutions receive robust legal support for religious freedom claims. Muslim organizations face scrutiny and suspicion when making similar claims.
Established denominations get deference for religious freedom arguments. New religious movements encounter skepticism and investigation.
Conservative religious positions receive protection as religious freedom. Progressive religious positions get dismissed as political activism.
Religious freedom serves some religions more than others.
──── The secularization paradox
Religious institutions use religious freedom to resist secularization while operating in increasingly secular spaces:
Religious universities claim religious exemption from secular academic standards while seeking secular accreditation and research funding.
Religious hospitals maintain religious identity while operating in secular healthcare markets and receiving secular insurance reimbursements.
Religious employers assert religious prerogatives while participating in secular labor markets and receiving secular business benefits.
They want religious protection in secular contexts.
──── Constitutional arbitrage
Religious freedom creates constitutional arbitrage opportunities that other civil liberties don’t provide:
Free speech faces time, place, and manner restrictions. Religious freedom claims more extensive exemptions.
Equal protection applies to government and public accommodations. Religious freedom can override equal protection in many contexts.
Due process has procedural requirements. Religious freedom can bypass normal procedural constraints.
Religious freedom has become a super-right that trumps other constitutional protections.
──── The institutional capture problem
Religious freedom discourse has been captured by institutions rather than serving individual believers:
Individual religious conscience gets less legal protection than institutional religious policy.
Personal religious practice receives less support than organizational religious prerogative.
Minority religious belief gets less accommodation than majority religious institution.
The discourse serves organizational power rather than spiritual freedom.
──── Democratic accountability evasion
Religious freedom provides the most effective mechanism for evading democratic accountability:
Public institutions can avoid democratic oversight by partnering with religious organizations that claim religious freedom exemptions.
Policy implementation can bypass democratic constraints through “religious accommodation” that achieves the same policy goals through different means.
Political opposition gets neutralized by framing policy preferences as religious freedom requirements.
Religious freedom short-circuits democratic processes.
──── The values inversion
Religious freedom discourse inverts traditional religious values:
Humility becomes institutional arrogance. Service becomes power assertion. Compassion becomes exclusion justification.
Love becomes discrimination defense. Truth becomes political strategy. Justice becomes privilege protection.
The discourse corrupts the religious values it claims to protect.
────────────────────────────────────────
Religious freedom has evolved from protecting individual conscience against state power to protecting institutional power against democratic accountability.
This transformation represents one of the most successful power captures in constitutional law. Religious institutions have convinced courts and politicians that their organizational interests represent individual religious liberty.
The result is a legal framework that privileges religious institutions over both secular institutions and individual religious believers. Religious freedom has become institutional freedom from democratic constraint.
The question isn’t whether religious freedom is important—it obviously is. The question is whether religious freedom should protect institutional power or individual conscience.
Current religious freedom discourse primarily serves the former while claiming to serve the latter.