The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion.” This inferred the separation of church and state, an important part of our country’s societal structure. Freedom of religion is a part of freedom to autonomy, or the right of self-governance. It allows for daily practice and beliefs people choose out of their own free will that do not harm anyone in the process. However, other rights of self governance similar to religion aren’t always included in this separation.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states personal autonomy is “the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action, often regardless of any particular moral content.”
All people have an inalienable right to their autonomy, whether that means getting tattoos, choosing a career, traveling wherever they please and so on. This could even go as far to say every person has the right to make bad decisions as well as good ones. People must face the consequences of their own actions, but they have the right and the ability to decide their course of actions.
When autonomous beliefs such as who a person will love or what a person will do with his or her's body do not harm or threaten anyone, the government should not be able to keep them from making those decisions. Church and state should incorporate more than just religion. The state should be separated from any law regarding peaceful, autonomous rights and beliefs.
Personal autonomy in itself is comparable to religion because religion is a well-known, well-respected autonomous right in our First Amendment. According to The Heritage Foundation, religious freedom means “people shouldn’t have to go against their core values and beliefs in order to conform to culture or government.”
If this is true for religion, it should be true for other personal core values and beliefs. This webpage also describes how religious freedom is the ability to live according to these beliefs and speak on them publicly and peacefully.
There are limits on freedom of religion as decided by the Supreme Court. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment says there must be “compelling interest” for them to interfere, so the government can interfere if a religious practice threatens public health or safety. Religious freedom does not mean any act under the umbrella of religion is protected if these acts were to physically harm another person.
Compare this limit to any other autonomous right to a person’s body or beliefs. If choosing a path in life affects only the person who makes the decision, a governing body should not tell anyone what they can or cannot believe, who they can or cannot love or what they can do with their own body.
There are always factors that should be considered, such as minors or dependents who aren't capable of handling the same rights and who need to be protected. The ability to consent for many scenarios is given to a minor around the age of 12, but varies from state to state. However, if a belief or decision of any child does not harm themself or others, the government cannot and should not interfere with the situation or take away their legal guardian's discretion.
All people have the ability to decide who they will be and what kind of life they will live. Our society recognizes the freedom to continue traditions and unique practices of someone’s faith, demonstrating core values and beliefs. If we can recognize the fundamentals of importance in this expression, the parallels to any autonomous right should be equally prioritized.
These rights are a key part of forming a strong identity and peaceful communities. Naturally having autonomy, these communities will unite whether rights are taken or not because no one can take away the right to feel or exist in one’s truest version of themself.
Libby Evans is a junior studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Want to talk more about it? Let Libby know by emailing her at le422021@ohio.edu.
