By now most have heard that the Supreme Court in a split decision sided with Hobby Lobby’s claim that they shouldn’t have to cover in employer insurance benefits forms of birth control that violate the religious conscience of the owners of the corporation.  And immediately that decision was evaluated according to a variety of filters.  Is it good news or bad news for women’s reproductive health?  If you support Obama care, was it a setback?  If you oppose Obama care was it as a victory?  No doubt a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” filter could be used to decide whose cause was helped and whose was hurt.

I want to suggest a different filter.  It really doesn’t depend on whether you think the viewpoints of the owners of Hobby Lobby are right or wrong when it comes to various forms of birth control.  Had the court found against Hobby Lobby (and the other plaintiff in the case) it would have in effect said, “The only place freedom of religion exists is between your ears.”  The moment you begin to do something about your faith in public life, that action enjoys no governmental respect.  A faith that is only allowed to exist in our head isn’t much of a faith at all.  It’s inconsequential.

In our country the perspectives of faith and religion are a driving force for everything from the relief of poverty, immigration reform, ecological concerns, to sanctity of life issues.  That doesn’t make everything done in the name of religion defensible.  But a ruling that actions taken because of religious conscience enjoy no unique respect by government would have had a chilling effect far beyond the the narrow issue in the headlines today.

Religion isn’t free if you can’t practice it.  That’s why this case matters and why people who live by faith should be glad for the decision, whether we agree with the owners of Hobby Lobby, or not.