Religious Beliefs and Business Ownership

...

I believe that the effects of CRA 1964, Title VII were too broad in scope to have survived intact for very long. The ruling was intended to discourage a selection by a location for a specific religious display, but has become a pivot point for an individual to attack a company if he does not share their beliefs. As with all rules of this sort, the original intent was lost and turned into something far beyond its purpose. To counter some of this trend, in 1993 Congress passed the RFRA or “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (Davis, 2015). This act defined at least some boundaries to how a person is offended by an action or display, and the terms to defining that offense. It reigned in some of the blatant abuses of CRA 1964 and is a great step in the right direction to add balance to the issue. The RFRA directly addresses the question of “how far should this go” in a usable and legal manner.

It is interesting to note that the idea of religion being a necessary human right is not a relatively new concept in our society. The United Nations established a resolution just after WWII called “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (United Nations, 1948) which sought to codify the rights of a human being with regard to his or her peers. In Article 18 is a key statement: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. This defines that all peoples have these rights, and goes on to clarify the freedom to express or practice these rights both in private and in public. The purpose of this document was to never again allow the atrocities of WWII to occur and to encourage the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Subsequently many countries have used this baseline to establish an ethical responsibility to note and address real world issues and not just sit on the sidelines. A recent example of this is in the outcry against Syria and the extremist groups engaged in the publicized attacks against civilians with little or no defenses. Countries such as America have taken it upon themselves to help with the relocation of refugees from this conflict, unfortunately often bypassing what would be normal checks and balances on the personal history of these individuals.

This sets the stage for a conflict between the individual and the group. Are these freedoms available to a class of individuals or only individuals themselves? Is an individual’s rights greater than the group of which he is a part? In recent history this trend seems to have been encouraged. The courts have supported single individuals and small groups going against much larger but silent masses (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984). In this case a small group accused a government office of violating their religious freedoms by selecting a Christmas symbol (in this case, a crèche) and displaying it where all could see. Many more people admired and applauded the display yet the case went all the way to the US Supreme court where it was eventually dismissed. To further cloud the issue of the individual the courts also ruled in 2010’s Citizens United in a manner that allowed corporations to have some of the same rights and freedoms as individuals, often called “Corporate Personhood” (Bentley, 2012). Now corporations can defend single accusers using the same right to freedom that the accuser is using.

Any citizen of the United States has had the freedom to “hang out his own shingle” and become a self-employed entrepreneur. Nearly 30% of the national workforce in America are employed in companies started by self-employed individuals, coming to 44 million jobs in 2014 (Pew, 2015). By starting small the business owner usually turns to a workforce made of family or close friends. As success builds the company still retains the goals and beliefs of the original owners. A strong case in point is the story of Sam Walton, who began a long career learning retail in 1945 with ownership of a Ben Franklin’s. He noted what he considered shortcomings of the operations and decided to setup a whole new chain founded on his beliefs of helping the small and rural areas of our country. In 1962 he opened his first stores and by 1991 had surpassed Sears to become the largest retailer in the United States (Biography.com).

Sam also promoted that a company can grow if its leaders established and held to beliefs that would support ethical and moral operations. Some of the concepts he set as founding principles were principles like “Be honest and fair”, “Never act unethically – even if someone else instructs you to do so”, and “Never ask someone to act unethically” (Wal-Mart, n.d.). These and other concepts also form the foundation for many religious beliefs and as such are both relatable to employees and easy to make a core principle. A Baylor University study showed that those who valued their relationship with God were associated with more innovation, higher revenues and bigger growth than companies who did not have religion as a key principle (Neubert, 2013).

So a fundamental question then with regards to religion as a basis for a company is simply is it successful? Does a common drive and goal lead to better success than companies founded on purely business or profit beliefs? History would seem to suggest that these companies are actually more successful. Tyson Foods is led by Donnie Smith, a Southern Baptist Christian. He believes that the success of Tyson is founded on being “faith-friendly” and has even funded the “Tyson Center for Faith and Spirituality in the Workplace” at University of Arkansas’ School of Business. A Fortune 500 company, Tyson has over 115 chaplains available throughout the assembly line to help employees in need. Daniel P. Amos, CEO of Aflac Insurance is a Christian who leads in the same light as his father and two uncles did after starting in 1955. During an interview his son, Paul Amos II, discussed the principles of the culture at Aflac: “Almost all of those principles come in some way from Scripture, adapted for use in the workplace.” (Paul Amos, 2011). Paul also summarized by saying: “So yes, I absolutely believe there’s a need for faith in the workplace and a better partnership between what’s happening in churches and seminaries and the business world.”

Paul’s comments echo many business leaders in the 21st century. Companies are no longer classed as the soulless machines in search only of profits. A landmark case helped to prove this point when the Supreme Court heard and decided the case of “Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby” (Burwell v. Hobby lobby Stores). The Green family founded the Hobby Lobby Stores chain of arts and craft stores on the principles of the Christian Faith and were clear that it was their desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts. In this case the Greens challenged the