Religion & American Law

In recent news a man named Beverly R. Butcher Jr. is filing a lawsuit against Consol Energy on behalf of his religious beliefs. Consol Energy/Consolidation Coal Company had employed Butcher until after the company acquired a biometric hand-scanning device in order to keep track of employees time and attendance. Butcher wrote a letter to his employers describing his objection to the use of the hand-scanning device, which he said is “against his religious beliefs.” Butcher explained that the hand-scanning device is linked to the mark of the beast and the antichrist as explained in the book of Revelation, chapter 13, verse 16 and asked for an exemption to the use of this device based on his religious beliefs.

In response, the designers of the hand-scanning technology wrote a letter to “Whom it may Concern” in regards to the lawsuit filed against the company. In the letter the manufacturers assured that the said product does not assign the mark of the beast to its users. The letter also stated that, since the verse that Butcher referenced in the bible only mentions the Mark of the Beast on the right hand, users with these specific religious reservations should not have a problem with using their left hand to be scanned. Butcher, not satisfied with this explanation, since he had requested complete exemption from the hand-scanner, was led to retire. He was allegedly forced to retire, as his attorney might put it, at an earlier age than he had planned due to unfair treatment on the basis of his religious beliefs.

What is interesting about this case is that the lawsuit is not explicitly based on the first amendment. In fact the first amendment is not even mentioned in the description of the case. Consol Energy is being sued with the hopes of ordering an injunction to stop the company from discriminating based on religious belief. In addition, the lawsuit hopes to win Butcher some compensation for his forced early retirement from Consol. I think the heart of this issue touches on the free exercise clause of the first amendment, specifically Butcher’s ability to freely exercise religion. The question is, should Butcher have been exempt from this company policy because of his certain religious beliefs? Despite the fact that the verse in Revelation discusses only the mark of the beast in regards to the right hand and forehead, should Butcher’s interpretation of this being either hand allow him an exemption?

I could offer an opinion in either direction here. This case begs an interpretation based the ideas of accommodation and strict separation as discussed in cases such as McCollum v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. This situation is quite different but, in my opinion, Consol should have accommodated Butcher’s religious beliefs and allowed him to record times and such with a supervisor in place of any type of hand scanning. I believe the court should rule in favor of Butcher and grant him compensation. Even though the bible specifically mentions the right hand and forehead in regards to the mark of the beast, one’s religious convictions are often based on interpretation of a written statement. The court does not have the place to decide whether or not Butcher’s religious convictions and interpretations of the bible in regards to his own life are valid. In SHERBERT v. VERNER the court did not discriminate on religious belief or interpretation but accommodated based on a woman’s religious convictions and interpretation regarding the Sabbath day. The same should hold for Butcher’s case at hand.

However, I recognize that company policy is in place for a reason. The reason is partially to create organization and accountability within the company. The policy applies to all, and was not set in place to discriminate against one religious group or affiliation. In other words, it is a secular policy. Invoking the slippery slope argument, if this man is accommodated, what should follow? Soon the company may have to individually check in each person because of other religious convictions and the whole organized structure falls apart. I think this argument is weak, since this is a very specific request and there do not appear to be other specific religious convictions against hand scanning. In addition, this is a free exercise which does not cause harm to others but applies to the private sphere of one individual. Therefore, Consol should be made to accommodate based on this religious belief.

What do you think? Should Butcher be compensated for unfair treatment? Is it simply ridiculous that he would invoke this passage in the bible? Does the court have the right to decide that?