Freedom of Religion According to the Illinois Constitution

SECTION 3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be
guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his
religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby
secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or
affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify
practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.

In addition to the above, Illinois has enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which provides that a law, even if it applies equally to all citizens, cannot strip away or punish the right to act on one’s religious conscience or refuse to act because of conscience, unless there is a compelling government interest at stake, and unless the government has selected the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.    Recent Federal cases have defined a compelling government interest well beyond just a legitimate purpose – for example, Korte v Sebelius  stated that the interest must be of the highest order or urgency and be of surpassing importance, and there must be a close fit between the government interest and the means chosen to implement it.

Can we really say that the state’s interest in assuring  individual sexual autonomy surpasses the rights and interests of one’s established family?   Is it really such that the government has a compelling interest in guaranteeing individual autonomy to the extent that there is to be no economic penalty in renouncing family commitments?     If so, there is indeed a close fit in punishing all religious and moral objectors who stand in the way.    But if some of the other lofty ideals piously stated in the “no-fault” law are truly the government aim, then the fit between ends and means has been proven by a 37 year track record to be sorely lacking!    Further, several 2013-2014 rulings in Federal court have suggested that state enablement of  sexual autonomy falls short of being a compelling government interest.    (Korte v Sebelius; Robichaux v Caldwell; Borman v Pyles-Borman)

Without conscience protections, the free exercise of religion is not possible.    Discrimination by family courts against religious objectors to unilateral divorce via bias in matters of procedural due process,  child welfare outcomes and property division is against the letter of Illinois law  and must not be tolerated.

On the other hand, entrenched unilateral divorce proponents within the judicial and legal community seem to be in the very business of protecting the acts of licentiousness of  offender spouses who file divorce petitions, and of rewarding practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.    This is turning Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution on its head in utter tyranny.

It is against this backdrop that I offer the commentary of Dr. Helen Alvare of George Mason University, Washington D.C.

“….It appears that lawmakers are responding more to cultural and media elites who express overt hostility to religion, or they are simply confused about the true meaning and purpose of marriage and the family…..

…the expansion of state power, combined with a “creeping” notion of human or civil “rights,” also jeopardizes religious freedom today. Government regulation has spread to nearly every sphere of life and thus imposes more constraints upon a wide variety of religious ministries. At the same time, “rights” language is increasingly applied to human “wants” rather than “needs.” It is used to promote individualism and particular ideologies, rather than universally recognized attributes of human life or dignity. This increase in regulation, combined with “rights creep,” leads directly to refusals to grant religious exemptions, on the ground that people have human “rights” to consensual sexual expression with any other person, or to kill an unborn child, and that “rights” do not permit exemptions for the sake of conscience.’

Read the full article:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3800/

Helen Alvaré is an associate professor at George Mason University School of Law and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute.