"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
~ Edmund Burke
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts

Monday, August 16, 2010

Religious Freedom

I have been thinking a great deal lately about religous freedom - including the separation of church and state. It occurs to me that the evolution of this concept has left many Americans in utter ignorance of its original meaning. Our forefathers left their European homes - left all that they knew or had ever known - to make the treacherous journey across the Atlantic and embark on a new life in a strange land. Of the nine thousand people that traveled to Jamestown, only one thousand survived!! I don't think any of us can even fathom what a risk coming to America really was for those who founded it. Why did these people show such courage, and why would they risk their lives and lives of their children to leave their home? The answer is embodied in one word: FREEDOM.

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.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Separation of Church and State in the Abortion Debate

Someone recently wrote the following to me:


"Abortion is a legitimate part of women's reproductive health care and I despise the interjection of religion into this. There is, after all, a separation between church and state and it should stand firm. Just because you or anyone else doesn't believe in abortion doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on those who do not feel the way you do."

The following is my response. I would welcome any comments or thoughts on it:


Separation of church and state - a phrase frequently quoted but rarely understood. The original intent of the founders was to ensure that government did not impose any one religion upon all. In essence, it was to keep the government out of the church. However, it would be impossible to keep the church out of government since the government is constituted of the people, who naturally hold to their various religious persuasions. You don't have a church, you say? Still, this does not exempt you from bringing (in essence) religion into government. Why? Simply put, all of us have values. Some of us derive our values from the Bible, others from life experience, and some just absorb the values of those around them. Most of us espouse a value system that is some combination of our experience and what we were taught as kids. But in the end, we all have beliefs. And in the end, we all want the government to reflect our particular beliefs.

Many Americans believe that abortion is murder, since it is depriving a fetus the right to life. Many others believe that the rights of a woman would be violated by laws protecting her fetus, since the fetus is in her body. I believe that abortion is wrong because it violates an unborn baby's right to live. It is impossible for me not to consider a fetus a life, since it begins circulating and pumping its own blood - often with its own blood type - at about the same time most people are just noticing their period is late! We now know that babies develop their own unique fingerprint at 3 months gestation, and that babies in the womb are able to dream, remember, feel and express emotion through facial expressions long before they are ever born. I do believe in choice - in a baby's choice to grow up and make a life for him or herself!
I also believe in women's rights - including the right to decide who to have sex with, and when. We are all free to choose to do whatever we want, but we are not free to choose the consequences of our decisions. Therefore, it is up to us to choose wisely. I understand that there are cases of incest or rape where the woman did not choose to have sex, and I think perhaps those cases deserve special consideration, just as is the case when the woman's life is seriously jeopardized by pregnancy.

Ultimately, this post is not about my beliefs. It is about rebuffing the notion that the pro-life movement has no place in civil society because of its religious underpinnings. For someone to assert that a particular view point should not be considered because of where that belief originated - in this case because it originated with religion or spirituality - is both absurd and prejudiced. Laws should be considered alone on the merits of liberty. Does the law deny liberty or does it expand it? Does it go far in protecting the rights of some, while destroying the rights of others? This should be the gage.

The beliefs of a pro-life individual are not of necessity derived from their religious beliefs, but ultimately it does not matter why someone believes something. It is their belief, and as an American, they have the right to fight for laws that reflect their belief!!

Fighting for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves is something I have to do to be true to myself. What is more American than that?