¶ … Religious Freedom" is one of the hottest arguments in America. Some believe that religion -- specifically their religion -- is the only way and should be the law of the entire land. Others believe that Religion was invented when the first conman met the first sucker; they have no use for Religion at all, they stress that there should be complete separation of Church and State and that Religion should have no say about legal rights in America. Between those two positions is at least one other position: that Religion is a positive force but that every religion has basic truths and every religion is as legitimate as the others. In America, the courts handle a lot of the arguments about Religious Freedom. I believe the relationship between religion and the courts is a double-edged sword because it helps define religious rights in the United States but it can also be very confusing. Our system is great in that it answers questions about all rights, including religious rights, and protects them. However, it is also downright confusing because it is so complex: America has several competing rights, all constitutionally guaranteed, and sometimes those rights conflict with each other. At the same time, the courts of this country must resolve disputes, decide the constitutionality of laws and determine how far each right should be protected when it infringes on another right. Added to all that complexity is the fact that the United States has a "dual court system" because America is a federal republic: there are federal laws passed by the federal government and state laws passed by state governments and each court system for each state and for the federal government must interpret laws.

As I understand this complex system, federal law "trumps" state/local law. If the federal courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, interpret the U.S. Constitution in a certain way, that way becomes the law of the entire United States. However, states often fight federal laws and the federal courts' interpretation of those laws by ignoring the federal laws/interpretations, passing their own laws, suing the federal government or doing all three. The biggest hammer the federal government has when states "act up" and refuse to follow federal law is funding: states accepting federal funding for education and other programs must follow the federal law. It seems that some states delay the pounding of that hammer by suing the government and asking to be allowed to continue as they are until the federal court -- all the way up to the U S. Supreme Court - decides, which can take years.

All those courts and all those laws and all those interpretations of all those rights and all those fights and delays practically mean that people live differently...

Some people in some parts of the country are allowed to have more religious freedom or more rights against religion-based discrimination than people in other parts of the country, depending on how their state legislatures and courts lean. This all makes it a great system and a terrible system. It's a great system because a person can actually live in a region that supports his/her belief: if a person wants to live in a society that is Fundamentalist Christian and runs the government according to those principles, for example, he/she can live in some areas of Texas, which is heavily Fundamentalist. On the other hand, if a person wants to live in an exceptionally LGBT-friendly place where religion has no say in how a person is treated, he/she can live in West Hollywood, California, which insists on freedom from all forms of discrimination, religion-based or otherwise.
Is that indecision ultimately exactly the way Americans are supposed to live? It appears from all the arguments that Americans keep trying to get us all on one page: the federal courts decide where religious freedom violates other freedoms and we are all supposed to live according to those boundaries. But perhaps that's not the way America is really supposed to be at all. Right now, regarding religious freedom and other freedoms, we aren't really a "united" United States. Right now, it appears that the United States is at least 2 separate regions, characterized by the "Red States" (which are more conservative, religious-leaning states) and the "Blue States" (which are more liberal anti-discrimination states). Perhaps that's exactly the sort of thing America is supposed to allow and perhaps that's exactly why America was founded as a federal republic with a dual court system. Since we don't all agree on certain matters, here about where Religious Freedom ends and freedom from anti-LGBT discrimination (for example) begins, maybe some of us are supposed to live in the areas favoring religions and others are supposed to live in areas protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination.

I consider the possibility of "live and let live" in different parts of the country knowing that this is contrary to at least some ideas of what America is supposed to be about. There is at least one very strong principle that all the constitutional rights of all Americans should be protected in every corner of America. That sounds wonderful but it just isn't reality, at least in modern-day America. In modern-day America, some Americans are "free" in one way in one geographical area while other American are "free" in another way in another geographical area. The courts are supposed to interpret how all those freedoms are supposed to coexist but 50…