Letter: Freedom of conscience only when it does not affect the public behavior of Christians?
Article 1 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees absolute liberty of conscience in matters of religious belief and practice. However, the text includes a big but clause:
“But the liberty of conscience, hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State.”
Barronelle Stutzman decided to follow her religiously inspired conscience in the current dispute with the homosexuals and the ACLU. The attorney general immediately piled on. I am sure the attorney general professionally and politically considered the matter, and determined that Stutzman or any person publicly exercising their Christian-inspired conscience is actually committing a licentious act, thereby disturbing the peace and safety of the citizens of Washington.
Thus, it seems that our AG believes the state constitution guarantees a religiously inspired freedom of conscience only when it does not affect the public behavior of Christians.
Perhaps the next development will be that we can go to our Christian church (or not), but must be quiet, and not sing so loudly that the sound would penetrate the walls to the outside, where non-Christians and/or police could hear.
Hello, catacombs!
Chuck Foley
Richland
This story was originally published September 21, 2015 at 12:29 AM with the headline "Letter: Freedom of conscience only when it does not affect the public behavior of Christians?."