For the last several years, “religious liberty” has been one of the primary talking points of the U.S. Catholic bishops. They’ve held the now-annual “Fortnight for Freedom” every summer since 2012 and have cited a number of state and national policy decisions as attacks on their religious freedom, most famously the Department of Health and Human Services’ requirements for the provision of contraception under health insurance plans. Religious freedom is under attack in the U.S., church leaders say, and they have issued an urgent call for Catholics to spring to action to defend their rights, at least while they still can.
After hearing so much from the U.S. bishops on religious liberty, I wonder how they might react to a recent debate taking place just north of the border. The province of Ontario has a law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet while riding—sounds reasonable, right? But the law presents a problem for Sikhs, who have requested an exemption because they cannot put a helmet over their traditional religious headwear. The Canadian Sikh Association has been fighting for an exemption from the law (which they already are exempt from in two other Canadian provinces) in Ontario since 2011.
In a letter last month, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne denied the request, citing public health and safety concerns. Wynne pointed to research showing that helmet laws decrease mortality rates for motorcycle riders by 30 percent and reduce the number of head injuries by 75 percent. “Ultimately, the safety of Ontarians is my utmost priority, and I cannot justify setting that concern aside on this issue,” she wrote.
The Sikhs in this case have a legitimate complaint, but the government also has a legitimate concern in protecting its citizens’ safety. The law applies equally to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs. And ultimately, no Sikh is going to be forced to wear a helmet. They can choose not to obey the law and risk the consequences, or they can move to a place that doesn’t require helmets for motorcycle riders, or they can simply choose to stop riding altogether. That would be up to the individual, who must decide for themselves which is more important: their bikes or their beliefs?
Thus far I’ve seen no outcry from the Catholics bishops—either in the U.S. or in Canada—over the plight of Ontario’s motorcycle riding Sikhs. I’d be curious to know whether they believe the government in this case has a compelling interest that would warrant placing a burden on a specific religious group, or if they believe that any case of a religious group being restricted in their actions by the law is an affront to the free exercise of religion. The actions and statements we’ve seen from the U.S. bishops in recent years would certainly suggest the latter.
Making anyone choose between following the law and following their faith is undoubtedly an unfortunate situation, and one that governments should try to avoid at all costs. But in a pluralistic society, sometimes these types of burdens are unavoidable. Freedom of religion must always be weighed against the other rights of the general population, which can often prove challenging and is never likely to make everyone happy. Religious liberty should always be protected, but doing so is much more complicated than some of the Catholic Church's recent slogans or campaigns would indicate.
Flickr image cc by U.S. Embassy Canada
