Misguided Attacks on the Freedom of Religion
Just the other morning I came across a Facebook post criticizing an Iowa State Senator for monologuing about God, sin, the resurrection, and our role in caring for the Earth. Here is his whole spiel, it’s about four minutes long:
Even those virulently opposed to Christianity should be able to recognize that the speech itself is harmless. The senator is merely asserting what he believes. So, why the outcry? Why are people saying such a speech shouldn’t be allowed?
Revisiting the Constitution
Before I dive into that, a quick review of the first amendment to the constitution:
“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.”
Despite some of the commentators’ assertions that this qualifies as an establishment of religion, it clearly is not. There is no proposal for the establishment of anything in that speech. Reading further, it is clear that the clause in it’s entirety protects such speech. So what is the issue?
The Motives & Objectives of the Outcriers
This is nothing more than intolerant people wishing to eradicate the mere mention of God from public life by closing the Overton Window. Judging by their comments, they wish to make any mention of any religious doctrine by its advocates within the chambers of government unacceptable. This is all part of a larger campaign to eradicate traditional religion from public life altogether. Some of the commentators even admitted this by stating that religion should be kept at home.
This is an exceptionally oppressive stance, but when questioned, the would-be oppressors do not seem intentionally malicious. Their desires derive from a wish to live life without God in its most extreme form. This is why we see atheistic groups absolutely adamant about removing anything resembling religion from public property; and not just monuments or carvings on public buildings and land, they even advocate for the removal of the phrase “In God we trust” on currency. They lost that case in court, but not due to a lack of effort. It is clear that they believe that their desire to live without God should trump the religious rights of others.
A Misunderstanding
Some of this stems from a genuine misunderstanding of what Thomas Jefferson meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. For those that do not know, this was a letter Jefferson sent outlining his stance on the role of the federal government in religious matters. In it, he argued that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” People - and atheists overwhelmingly so - associate that phrase to mean that there should be no interaction whatsoever.
Judging by Jefferson’s drafts of that letter; and the fact that he allowed Sunday worship services to be held in the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and other various government buildings, having no interaction was clearly not what he envisioned. Jefferson simply believed that the declarations of when and how people should fast, pray, and offer thanksgiving was not a function the federal government should have. This was classic Republican doctrine, which stood in opposition to the Federalists’ beliefs that the president should serve as a religious leader as well, issuing proclamations on religious issues just as the British King did. But, a lot of people do not know any of that. They just have a short, one sentence belief telling them the church and state should be separate. Which they interpret in a manner that accords with their desires.
What Freedom of Religion Should and Should Not Be
Ultimately, the atheistic vision is definitely something we should aspire to avoid. Telling people that they cannot talk about religion in public, simply because they do not want to hear it, is intolerance. Anyone still advocating that position, knowing full well that they are oppressing religious people solely based on their intolerance, satisfies the dictionary definition of bigot.
The founders gave us the best model of religious freedom ever devised, and Thomas Jefferson affirmed it. The federal government should not exercise its power to dictate religious affairs or favor any religion over another, while at the same time it must ensure that its laws and operations do not inhibit the free exercise of religion or inhibit speech, as long as the free exercise and speech does not take away or suppress the natural rights of others. Since there is no right to not hear something, that means that any Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etcetera, may discuss their beliefs anywhere in public.
History shows that being able to test and discuss our beliefs and ideas with each other is a foundational requirement for intellectual progress and essential to maintain a free society. It is important to call out those who undermine and attack that right.
