When Religion and State Collide

As I looked up towards the New Hampshire state house late yesterday morning behind newspaper and a half-eaten burrito, I was reminded of the Supreme Court's ruling the previous day in which a narrow decision struck down an integral part of the federal health care mandate, ruling that for-profit businesses of any size are permitted to restrict contraception to female employees if the employer cites a religious reason to do so.

The New Hampshire state house, July 1st.

In my mind, I asked the state house how and why it became less relevant in comparison to religion, how it could happen that the law could no longer protect every American citizen no matter whom they were employed by. Growing up in that small city and looking across the skyline, I thought momentarily that I had received my answer. No building except for a house of worship is permitted to be taller than the building I was facing, the seat of New Hampshire government. I knew that religion and law must, and always will, co-exist. Yet I couldn't understand where religious freedom came into play in the law.

For personal reference, I like religion, I'm religious, but I've long felt that it must exist independently of the law. The U.S. might be an overwhelmingly Christian nation (roughly 80%) but it's been built upon the ideal of welcoming immigrants from every culture and religion. While Americans can and should practice religious freedom in being able to worship free of prejudice within the U.S., I can't quite understand why I might inflict my religion on others and include it within my own definition of religious freedom.

How is religious freedom achieved by asking one's employees (in the case of Hobby Lobby, (the main plaintiff in Monday's ruling) 13,000 Americans of various faiths) to conform to a particular (very private) aspect of a particular religion? It's as if the definition of religious freedom has curved into asking others to conform.

By taking power  away from government and placing it into the hands of people to choose if employees receive the full benefit of the federal health care law, the ruling reminds me a bit of Citizens United a few years ago, which ruled that corporations can be defined as individuals and provide political campaigns with as much financial support as possible. It reminded me of the wealth needed now for an American presidential campaign and the power that corporations, not people, hold in the United States today.

I want to understand all sides, I want to understand the victory this could be viewed as, but I simply can't if one's choice is being taken away. Surely an employee can work elsewhere, surely they can purchase out of pocket, but how far will religious freedom lead individuals in erasing the health care mandate and mandating the lives of others? When did religious freedom become a method to conform the lives of others?