Pages

Friday, October 19, 2012

Religious liberty is more than you think

Religious liberty has more or less taken a back seat to the economy in this election cycle, which is somewhat predictable given that it is hard to think about principles and fundamental truths when you are worried when the next meal may come.  While the economic situation isn't in such dire straights for most anxiety is the order of the day.

Part of the problem is that religious liberty has been so dumbed down in the public mind that Obama's "freedom of worship" is what people think of rather than the actual "freedom of religion."  The two couldn't be more different.

Religious freedom is the first right of the American citizen.  Recognized as a natural and inalienable right by the Founders, this principle is the bedrock from which all other rights flow.  The religion is the center of the moral viewpoint, and the practice of such is what distinguishes the human from the animal.

The Founders understood this when drafting the Declaration of Independence.  While the backgrounds of these men were diverse they understood the foundations of natural rights and the paramount importance of religion in society.  Far from modern secular arguments would hold, religion was to have a prominent place in the public square.

Most of the confusion lies around the First Amendment, or rather the modern man's interpretation of such.  If we are to believe what secularists would say about it the First Amendment was to protect the government from religious people influencing the laws of the land.  While ridiculous this actually carries clout in some circles under the (also misunderstood) guise of "separation of Church and State."

Let us examine the text:
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.

The bold is mine, as it pertains to the discussion about religious liberty with regards to the HHS mandate.  Right now I will simply restate that the HHS mandate violates the bolded part of the First Amendment by forcing religious institutions to compromise their faith on life to execute their beliefs in helping the poor.  This is the work of a tyrant, not a President.

The italicized portion is where most are confused these days.  So a little background is required.  First and foremost most of the Founders came from England, where the State Church of Anglicanism was the official stance on moral issues and whatnot.  Any law that conflicted with the official religion was not allowed by virtue of that conflict.  This was a situation that the Founders wanted to avoid, had to avoid if the people were to have a say in how the laws were shaped.

The jump from saying that no religion should be established to saying that religion has no place in the public square is a non sequitur.  Yet we are to believe that any religiously based law is somehow off limits or not allowed to be passed by virtue of its origin.  This is to rob the First Amendment of its power and in actuality establish a "secular religion".

The Founders understood the importance of religion.  The purpose of the religious freedom is to allow the people to shape the laws of the land in conformance with their beliefs and their ability to convince their fellow citizens.  Thus to deprive Americans of religious background a chance to shape their laws is to violate the rights of religious citizens.

Next time I will argue why a secularist is a greater threat to religious liberty than a theocrat.  For the moment it is sufficient to say that the current understanding of religious liberty is woefully inadequate and a threat to all our freedoms.

No comments: