We all learned in school that they specifically sought religious freedom. They wished to escape the tyranny of a government that forced one state religion on all its citizens. They believed that civil law had no place limiting religion or religious practice.
I recently happened upon an article written by Cardinal Francis George entitled "Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom." I was so impressed, that I posted one of his thoughts on facebook. This is what I posted: "Religious freedom means that religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square." Someone left a comment on my facebook page that said:
"Muslims too? People who govern in the name of God attribute their own personal preferences to God, and therefore recognize no limit in imposing those preferences on other people."
Knowing this person, I would not doubt if his comment was meant as an affront. My husband said I should just unfriend him. (ha ha ha) I thought it was a good question, though. I thought about it for awhile, then responded with the following:
I never said anything about governing in the name of God! I wrote that comment because religion is under attack. It shouldn't be illegal for people to pray on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial or in public school for that matter. Our cons...titution was founded on the belief that we receive rights from God, not from government. Belief and reverence for our Creator was at the center of our country's founding, as was respect for individuals to express their views - religious or otherwise - in the public square.
You make a good point about Muslims, but political representatives are elected - essentially hired - to represent those citizens who elected them. Heaven help us if the majority of the people elect someone in favor of Sharia law. Even then, it would be impossible to institute most of the objectional practices of Islam on a state or federal level because our constitution - the ultimate law of the land - prohibits anything which infringes upon the individuals right to life or liberty.
It's kind of sad, because as I am writing this I am thinking of all the ways in which the constitution is already being violated by corrupt, self-serving politicians.
Ultimately, the separation of church and state was designed to keep the state from influencing or regulating churches - not from religions influencing the state.
That last sentence embodies the reality that has been so lost from our public discourse on this topic. People are afraid to proclaim their beliefs for fear of offending those who say, "But that's religion, and in this country we have a separation between church and state."
I would like to quote a bit more from the excellent article by Francis George:
"According to the Catholic understanding of religioius freedom, this right cannot be reduced to freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience. Religious freedom means that religious groups and individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square. Any attempt to reduce that fuller sense of religious freedom to a private reality of worship and individual conscience, as long as you don't make anybody else unhappy, is not in our American tradition. It is the tradition of Napoleon Bonaparte, who made civil peace after the terror of the French Revolution by limiting the Church to the sacristy and not permitting it to have a public role.
When government fails to protect the consciences of its citizens, it falls to religious bodies to become the defenders of human freedom. We can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty."
I learned an interesting fact recently, which I am sad to admit I did not previously know. Leading up to the time of the American Revolution, preachers played an enormous role in educating the people, and inciting them to defend their liberty! Isn't that interesting? I believe that it is incumbent upon us, regardless of our religious persuasion, to defend and proclaim liberty for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment