Religion & American Law

Recently, a group of four Christian universities located in Oklahoma were represented by an organization whose attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the Obama administration. The four universities that are filing the lawsuit are Southern Nazarene University, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, Oklahoma Baptist University, and Mid-America Christian University. The organization is Alliance Defending Freedom and is an American conservative Christian non-profit organization whose attorneys are also participating in 13 other lawsuits against the mandate. All four schools appose the mandate that forces them to supply contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to it’s employees as it goes directly against their beliefs as Christian universities. Other than believing that the universities are being forced to abandon their religious beliefs, the schools believe that they are being treated as “second-class religious organizations, not entitled to the same religious freedom rights as substantially similar entities that qualify for the exemptions.”

The universities believe that the mandate violates the first and fifth amendments along with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act breech is believed to be the fines that would follow if the universities did not offer the mandated coverage because the fines would create a major financial situation that could cause the universities to stop proceeding. The first amendment breech presented is believed to be that the universities are privately owned and are religious institutions and the mandate would force them to not practice their religious beliefs by forcing them to offer something they believe against their religion.

One way of looking at this situation is that the universities do not employ only Christian staff members, which would give reason to have the mandate, forced upon them. The universities cannot discriminate in the hiring process and some of the professors may not be Christians who believe that these medical treatments go against his or her religious beliefs. While they are a private university, one may argue that this diversity of employees can be used as the main reason for the universities to need to offer the mandated services. Another reason one may argue this is that the schools, while religiously affiliated, are not religious institutions in themselves, also serving students that may not fall in line with the religious beliefs so to claim that they are strictly a Christian institutions would not be entirely correct but merely an institutions of high education. The next reason a person could give is that Christian beliefs are a vague notion to reference, as there are many Christian groups that do not view these forms of medicine in a negative fashion. The universities could also be under scrutiny for appealing this if they accept money from the government for being an academic institution. Finally, a person may argue that an affiliation with a religious entity does not necessarily constitute being governed by those religious laws.

The other view would be that the universities should be granted the exception to the healthcare mandate. The reasons one could give for this claim is that the universities are all private institutions and that they are religiously affiliated therefore allowing the exemption. A second reason one could give is that the universities clearly identify with the Christian religion and that the people who seek employment there would need to understand that they are working at a religiously affiliated institution. Thirdly, the schools have established themselves as religious institutions and that to view them as less of a religious institution than other academic institutions that have the religious affiliation would be discrimination against the four universities.

I have mixed feelings on the situation, as I can understand that they are a private institution that is explicitly affiliated with their specific Christian religious views. However, I also believe that they are not the church itself and while they would need to offer the medical treatments to all, there is nothing forcing the individual person to partake in the treatments. The religious freedoms are given to the individual person, not an inanimate institution. The people who work at and operate the universities are not being forced to take the treatments, they are only being offered to them. I also do not see the university as being able to deny someone a medical treatment when it does not go against his or her own religious beliefs. With all taken into consideration I would have to say that I do not approve of giving the institution that ability to deny its employees of a medicine.