EDITORIAL: Kindness missing in political controversy over Religious Liberty Act

Few topics generate the strong feelings and emotions that religion does. An individual’s belief — or non-belief — in a higher power is intensely personal in nature. It motivates people to do great things for others and when misused, unfortunately, is the impetus for terrible actions.

So, when a government body takes up an issue that focuses on religion, there’s a near certainty that controversy will soon be in the mix as people of various viewpoints look to find evidence of the angels or the devils that they believe are lingering in the details.

Such is the case with House Bill 757, known as the Religious Liberty Act.

On Monday, Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed the legislation, which was expanded after initially being an effort to protect ministers from reprisal for acting in accordance with their faith. In his veto statement, Deal said that while he saw merit in the original bill, which was called the Pastor Protection Act, the later versions opened the door to the possibility of state-endorsed discrimination. It’s long been noted by both those who pass laws and those of us who live under them that the biggest problem with good law is unintended consequences. While Deal commended lawmakers for attempting to address his concerns about where this proposed law could lead, his veto was testament to his determination that the final bill had not cleared the discrimination hurdle.

“Their (legislators’) efforts to purge this bill of any possibility that it will allow or encourage discrimination illustrates how difficult it is to legislate on something that is best left to the broad protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he said. “If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by the man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take. “

That HB 757 was the center of a political vortex is an understatement. Both those in support of its passage and those opposed to it played hardball politics. Too many on both sides followed the example of national politics, demonizing the opposition, making threats, calling names, belittling and labeling. Opponents of HB 757 were heathens, while supporters were hicks. Then they got ugly about each other. Deal noted that some supporters of the bill questioned his character and moral convictions, while opponents threatened to retaliate by taking jobs out of the state.

Not a lot of treating others as you would want to be treated entered the political discourse on this piece of legislation, and that’s a particularly sad note. Disagreement doesn’t have to be disagreeable. With all the frenzy that gets whipped up by the least perceived slight or disagreement these days, a good dose of treating others with the kindness, civility and respect that you want would go a long way to resolving any number of issues we face, from the local level to the world arena.

— The Albany Herald Editorial Board