As I understand it, religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods. Fair?
The issue of freedom of Religion has been an issue since the beginning of our Republic.
The first amendment reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
As an outgrowth of human history concerning religious rights, our forefathers were careful making efforts to protect individual rights as it comes to religion. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists assuring them that no church would become the ordained church of the nation:
“Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation, which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties; the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”
Thomas Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
European history is a classic example of how the merging of government and religion proves the adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Additionally, no justification of the practicality or morality of an act is needed if it is from god. For a while in England Protestants were persecuted and even killed because Catholics were in charge of the government and most of the property. Political power and monopoly ownership crushed the common citizens.
Then the Pope wouldn’t give Henry a divorce causing him to abandon the relationship of his government with the Catholic power structure and become a Protestant. This would merely be a funny piece of trivia but for the avalanche of government power and wealth. The Protestants stepped out of the line for the guillotine and were replaced by Catholics.
There was a time the Catholic Pope offered a gateway to Heaven for any of his followers who killed a Muslim.
The way the Jewish followers of God claimed the Promised Land after wandering in the desert was, at the behest of God, killing all of the men women and children who resided there.
I am not trying to pick on any particular religion…it would take little effort to find worse atrocities by other religious organizations. The point is that logic or ethics from a government charged with the duty of the people is inhibited by allegiance of one religion. I understand the argument that if the real god is put in charge good can happen for the followers, but obviously sometimes this hasn’t been the case and we have no iron clad way of picking the right religion or god.
The merging of individual rights with the protection of religion is complex. For instance, the government doesn’t tax churches because the “power to tax is the power to destroy”. However, this means other people and their properties must pick up the slack for tax burden. Use of church assets and organization in elections is wrong because of the separation of church and state yet non-taxed money and property from religions finds its way into elections frequently.
There are always bumps in the road when trying to keep church and state separate. Over the years I have stood before some judges who had the 10 commandments mounted behind them (at taxpayers’ expense); my clients and witnesses were sworn on a bible, saying so help me god. These were American citizens whose beliefs ranged from atheistic to many Christian and non-Christian religions. Of course, much of that has been modified over the years but many still exist.
In my mental musings, while sitting in one of those courtrooms, I let my mind float through those commandments:
I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other Gods but me! I’m sorry, which one?
Thou shalt keep the Sabbath Day holy! Wait isn’t that Saturday? Christians seem to use Sunday for that. There are a bunch of rules about keeping the Sabbath in the Jewish library but I haven’t seen them. I think there might be a problem pulling an ox from a ditch on the Sabbath but the leader of the Christian off branch from the Jewish religion thinks that might be okay.
Thou shalt not kill! Didn’t Jesus amend that in the Sermon on the Mount?
Thou shalt not commit adultery!Didn’t he amend this one as well?
I understand there is a movement to restrict the Muslim religion via governmental dictate. Sounds a lot like what British royalty did to Protestants at the bequest of Catholics. Government involvement, especially in the context of un-taxable property ownership, violations of law and political activities, seems reasonable, but attacking a religion because it is different than the more popular and politically powerful ones is the classic mistake that the first amendment is trying to avoid.
In my travels around the world I have met and become friends with many people who practice many religions and those who have rejected religion. The vast majority are good people with thoughts and experiences we should want to know. Anyway, freedom of speech and religion are the backbone of our history and solo chance for a meaningful national future. Restrictions on speech, such as not calling for immediate violence, must be clear and objectively enforced—not for the sake of a popular religion but for rules for a basic framework that allows all ideas to be displayed. Ironically, many ideas discussed in our past have become fundamental to our society today.
The action that can be most edifying for a smart person is listening–listening to sources contrary to one’s politics, religion and morals. Such an action can be empowering to debate against another position and, most importantly allow someone to alter their feelings and beliefs through thought and contemplation.
Recent Comments