A libertarian state is one where the state is severely constrained in how it can act; a theocratic state is one where the laws are all based around religion. If some Christians have their way, America could become a bit of both: a theo-libertarian state where the government is severely constrained in what it can do because it can't easily do anything if it interferes with people's religious beliefs or practices. Even if you are a libertarian, a theo-libertarian state can't look good.
Overriding, Compelling Reasons for Government Action
A concerted effort has been made by state and federal governments to reinstate some form of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because it created special privileges for religious believers that were unavailable to atheists and secular groups. All of these replacement RFRAs establish the principle that would: "... allow government to interfere with religion only when it has an overriding, compelling reason - such as to protect health and safety - but then to do so only in the least restrictive manner possible."
On the face of it, this sounds reasonable — why should the government interfere with people's free exercise of religion any more than absolutely necessary? However, this principle only sounds reasonable as applied to religious rights because it could reasonably be applied to all of our rights and beliefs. Sure it would be nice if the government were prevented from interfering with religion unless it had an "overriding, compelling reason" - but it would also be nice if it similarly prevented from interfering with our lives as a whole unless it had an "overriding, compelling reason."
What Is Religious Practice or Belief?
We should stop and consider the issue of just what constitutes "religious practice or belief." Will our government restrict it to the practices and beliefs which are part of the traditional religious faiths of our country? What about the numerous non-traditional religious beliefs and practices - those normally designated as belonging to "cults?" What about Satanists? Heaven's Gate? New Agers? Could they be denied equal protection because they are "cults" and not "real" religions?
And what of persons who have spiritual beliefs but do not align themselves with any particular religion? Is it only by belonging to a formal group that one's beliefs would be legitimized under the law? Is that something which I should be allowed to decide? Or a government bureaucrat? Well, that is exactly what must happen if the government is granted authority to privilege the activities of religious groups over the activities of other groups.
Could the government permit Native Americans to use peyote in religious ceremonies but not allow Rastafarians to use marijuana in theirs? Not very easily - so anyone who wishes to use any illicit substance merely needs to start or join an accommodating religion. Would Mormons be permitted to practice polygamy but no one else? Not very easily - so anyone wishing to form legal marriages with multiple partners merely needs to start or join a religion which includes such practices. And of course there will be no way to prevent same-sex marriages which find some sort of theological support. No bigoted "Defense of Marriage Act" will be able to stop gays from having legal unions if they wish to claim a religious basis.
New Avenues for Liberty
In one sense, this is definitely a bad idea. A special set of rights and privileges should not be created for religion, religious beliefs, and religious practices. When our government wishes to do something, it should not have to jump one hurdle before enforcing it upon people in general, but jump a much higher and more difficult hurdle before enforcing it upon religious believers.
It was exactly this which the Supreme Court objected to in its decision against the RFRA as an example of Congress overstepping its power and creating new rights not included in basic Constitutional protections. If these strict standards are proper when judging governmental interference with religion, why isn't it proper when judging governmental interference in general? If a law is unimportant enough that religious people need not obey it, why is it a law in the first place?
But in another sense, this could definitely open up the flood-gates of liberty, allowing people to bypass the restrictive laws which are regularly passed against private conduct. No longer would the governments like that in Alabama find it easy to pass the infamous Dildo Law that prohibits the sale of anything which "stimulate human genitalia." Forget about the "War on Drugs" - anything and everything you wish to put into your system could become available. Prohibitions against some sexual practices like sodomy will remain, but become totally irrelevant. Same-sex marriages could become commonplace.
Ironically, just about all of these restrictive laws have a religious basis, and represent the efforts of narrow-minded religious zealots to impose their social and sexual morality upon the private lives of other citizens. But these same zealots are now attempting to hand everyone what would amount to a "Get out of jail free" card to use against such governmentally imposed morality. No matter what laws they pass against whatever behaviors, there will exist the possibility of circumventing those laws at will.
At the very least, lawyers and people working for the court system will find full employment for a long time to come — but eventually, I can see the situation arising where anything which is religiously motivated but which does not harm other people is permitted. Now, if I could just get passed the idea of trying to justify my actions theologically, I might be willing to support this effort...
