I write not as a political participant, but as a concerned Tennessean and Hindu-American. Having done extensive work on religious freedom and politics, through my work at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs and the University of Texas, I have seen our willingness to reshape the definition of religious freedom from one of defending a personal choice to an infringement on civil liberties by the far-right. However, don’t let Republicans in Washington fool you, the current religious freedom debate surrounding Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is more about selfishly politicizing religious liberty than it is about preserving a fundamental right.

Rhetoric From My Opponent  

Recently, Congressman Mark Green (R-TN) published an opinion piece that is focused on bemoaning why he was not confirmed as Secretary of the Army in 2017, and why that is the same as the “attacks” on Judge Barrett. The title and substance of that piece are more about being a victim denied a higher political office than they are about protecting religious groups and minorities. If Green were genuinely concerned with religious freedom, during his nomination and now, he would consistently fight instances of persecution in this country across all religions. Instead, he criticizes the left for attacking his faith and values, without any memory of his nomination process. It wasn’t just Democratic politicians, it was also the Human Rights Campaign and people like then Republican Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who said that Green’s comments about gays, lesbians, and Muslims were “very concerning”.

The Far-Right’s Double Standard

 Green hides behind religious freedom while saying that Islam should be excluded in religion classes, and insists that the only things that should be taught about Islam are assaults and other violent instances in the religion’s history. While he supported the birther conspiracy against President Obama and cited anti-Muslim propaganda in his self-published novel, “A Night with Saddam”, his comments and perspective bring up an important and nuanced aspect of religious freedom in America – the need to promote religious freedom while not depriving others of that right in the process. He seems to be without irony when he speaks out on the mischaracterization of Christians and Christian groups while doing the same when discussing other religions. Someone who served in the military and is currently in Congress should understand that, and be more sensitive to the fact that his constituency includes people who are Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and many other faiths. I cannot state this enough, religious freedom is not a cover for bigotry, hatred and discrimination.

The Role Of Faith In The US Government

At the center of this debate is how much faith plays a role in governing across a diverse citizenry. Green accurately cites Article VI of the Constitution, but seems to misunderstand its meaning. The Constitution simply states that we will not require that a public official be a person of faith or a specific faith, not that we wouldn’t explore how a person’s faith may play a role in their responsibilities. I am certain that Green would have no problem pursuing this line of questioning with someone who is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, or any other faith outside of his own. Religious minorities across this country want to make sure that our Supreme Court justices and elected officials will promote laws based on protecting religious freedom for all, and will not enact or uphold laws based on any specific religion.

 Religious freedom protects minorities, pure and simple. It is the reason that people came to the new world, the reason that many seek asylum to this day, and the reason that we have hope in institutions that seek to promote equality and opportunity instead of bigotry or repression. It is very much a slippery slope to ignore whether a Supreme Court justice, or anyone in government, will act based on a bias towards a certain religious practice or set of beliefs.

 Congressman Green used the cover of a relevant and important event – a Supreme Court nomination – to focus on his own failed nomination. His examples all revolve around tired arguments of radical Democrats and invoking the same prominent politicians to paint as bogeymen. He claims that “personal faith should not disqualify Americans from serving their country. Senate Democrats didn’t understand that in 2017, but the voters of Tennessee did, and that’s why they sent me to Congress.” I will remind Green that both his opponent in 2018 and 2020 are part of major faiths – just not his.

Why I’m Running To Replace Rep. Green

I am an active defender of religious freedom and the ability for people in public and private life to practice as they see fit. However, I do not advocate bigotry, repression, or the use of our institutions to legislate religion. This means tolerance of all faiths and the free expression thereof, whether you believe or not. It also means that we have the right to question how faith will play a role for those who are in government. Noted scholar Alfred Stepan pioneered the concept of the twin tolerations – that religious leaders must grant authority to elected officials in lawmaking but that people of faith must be allowed to participate in our political process. However, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to explore the role that faith plays in political responsibilities and ensure that no one faith is elevated above others. This is something that will be front and center at Barrett’s confirmation hearings, and unfortunately seems to be lacking from Green and other far right politicians.