Religious expression, or just the complaints and grievances

It's a common complaint: the secularization of America.

Religious groups feel as if they are constantly under attack — from the ‘War on Christmas,' to the push on birth control, prayer in school to the mutilation of traditional marriage. While most Americans are complaisant and tolerant to our changing state, conventional objection will always remain.

Still, America may be the last bastion of hope to freely express your beliefs.  If anything, we have only one serious issue with religion, and it has to do with our military ties; it has nothing to do with a nation that feels free to attack mainstream religion, such as Christianity or Judaism. Those complaining about a secular America are the only ones ever complaining, and they're usually religious. This is an artificial issue.

Nevertheless, we do sometimes see crimes of restriction against religious organizations, particularly in employment and participation purposes. And despite decades of precedent defending the establishment of religion, the Supreme Court still deals with the business.

Just last month, the court rules — unanimously nonetheless — that while employees of religious organizations are not exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, religious organizations will always be protected.  

In 1963's Sherbert v. Verner, the Court rejected South Carolina state law that would deny unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day Adventist who turned down a job offer that required Saturday work. In 1972's Yoder v. Wisconsin, the Court found Wisconsin's law requiring students to stay in school until the age of 17 unconstitutional, after an Amish family challenged the law.

In 1990's Employment Division v. Smith, while ruling against an individual who was fired for use of peyote, even though it was for religious purposes, the Court did maintain that the states have the power to allow such illegal acts if under a religious purpose, but they are not required to. In 1993's Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, the court struck down a city ordinance banning animal sacrifice, which was put in place after a local religious group began the practice.

And though not necessarily a freedom of religion case, just last year, the Court defended the Westboro Baptist Church's protests at a military funeral for the late Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, holding that no matter how hurtful and disagreeable the message may be, they have every right to say what they wish, while in a peaceful and legally-situated manner. As Chief Justice Roberts said when citing the 1989 Texas v. Johnson opinion: "…if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

The final sentiment rings true throughout American society, especially when it comes to religious matters. Americans just don't mind what their neighbors believe in, or at least they shouldn't.

Yet the issue continues on.

In fall 2010, following a discrimination complaint against a Christian fraternity, Vanderbilt University began investigating all religious organizations on their campus. The university ultimately would eliminate a clause in the student organization handbook protecting religious association. Essentially retooling their non-discrimination policy for student organizations, the Chancellor held that membership in student organizations will be "open to everyone and that everyone, if desired, has the opportunity to seek leadership positions."

One director of a Christian fraternity on campus wrote in an editorial to Fox News: "How can an organization maintain its identity without the ability to choose its members and leaders based on those beliefs? The answer is: It can't. Vanderbilt's new nondiscrimination policy enables a Jewish student to become president of the Muslim student organization, or a Christian student to become the president of the campus Hindu organization."

And this is where the guise of secularization arises. Though, the devil is in the details.

Vanderbilt is a private institution, with no religious affiliation. The University does not need to adhere to the laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. Ironically, in the same manner, religious organizations cannot be required to "not discriminate," Vanderbilt cannot be required to allow discrimination.

Moreover, there's no substantive proof a leader of one of these groups could get to such a position without the vote of the students involved in the group. The university is not assigning a Muslim to lead a Jewish fraternity. A Christian, believing in traditional marriage, will not be appointed to an executive role in a gay or lesbian student group without the members' approval. There is no puppeteering.

The University has merely required the student organizations to accept this new policy — a nondiscrimination one. They have not directed the groups to act upon it.

No one enjoys messing with another's business, or trying to make things right — politically correct — merely to please the general public. But it doesn't mean there's always an immediate complaint to be made.

Sometimes, people need to let things be — accept the circumstance and move on. No one is stepping over religious bounds here; rather it's only another grievance against a situation that doesn't substantially change anyone's life.