Freedom for Whom?

Jun 26, 2026

THIS WEEK: Freedom for Whom?

“Covering Extremism” Boot Camps Coming Soon!

This week the term “religious freedom” took center stage.

A Supreme Court — that has heralded “religious freedom” as a major priority — made a curious ruling: that a Rastafarian man whose religion required him to wear dreadlocks could not hold prison guards personally responsible after they forcibly shaved his hair. This despite a federal law that protects religious expression in prison.

Critics pounced on the case, pointing out that the Roberts Court has repeatedly ruled to protect “religious freedom” as it relates to conservative Christianity, often at the expense of other rights for other people. Whether the cases involved an employee’s right to contraception coverage (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), a coach’s right to gather students for a post-game prayer on the football field (Kennedy v. Bremerton), or the right of parents to shield their children from LGBTQ-themed books in public schools (Mahmoud v. Taylor), the Court has repeatedly declared “religious freedom” so important it can even outweigh competing rights.

This recent case highlights why reporters should be cautious about using the term “religious freedom” as an entirely neutral value.

Like the term “parents’ rights” which is often used to define a very specific type of right for a very specific type of parent, “religious freedom” often has an unspoken narrowness to its meaning.

Both terms are politically-charged. They are no longer useful descriptors with traditional meanings. We should not treat them as such.

When judges, elected leaders, CEO’s, or citizens claim to care deeply about one’s right to religious expression, parenting, and/or free speech we should do what reporters are taught to do with all claims. We should ask them to prove it. And if they can’t? That’s a great story.