Freedom of Religion

jcoates said:

the original federal hate crimes laws, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, have always covered religion as a protected class.

Click to expand...

Besides cultural, historical and grandfather legislative reasons, can someone explain to me why there should be such thing as "freedom of religion" from a pure logical point of view. Why are religious groups so special that they are often given special treatment (e.g., tax exemption for church business and property)? Why should I as a tax payer indirectly pay for something I have no faith in? Why don't philosophical beliefs (e.g., Taoism, Confucianism, evolutionism) that are based on logic or even all beliefs receive the same protection?

The only other apparent reason I can add to the ones at the beginning of your question is population size. A significant portion of the population in most societies holds some sort of either deeply or nominally held religious belief. Acknowledging that commonality, even if the religions themselves may vary, is most commonly done by retaining historical protections for religious practice. That remains true even if the fervor with which religion is practiced shows signs of decline.

Another point worth noting, at least as a matter of law is the differences in the age of the documents that guarantee those protections. In the US, the initial document guaranteeing the principle explicit religious freedom is our constitution. We also have a tradition of not throwing out our constitutions (federal or state) when we become dissatisfied with them. Instead we amend them repeatedly, which can actually lead to some confusion, increasingly complicated legal rulings and long standing debates about the intent of the original language as often principles from more than a century prior are applied to present day problems. This has had some impact on the debate over religion and it's place in US society. Officially, the constitution says there is to be no establishment of religion in US, a direct response to official state religions in Europe and the subsequent persecutions that they produced against dissenters. In practice the situation has become something different. While there is no official state religion, an unofficial standard has developed which is harder to define and even more difficult to change. Many of the founding fathers were nominally Christian or even Deist with less strident religious views than their successors. yet later generations have been more explicit in their faith. This has had the effect of making Christianity in its various forms into the unofficial American religion in the eyes of some, particularly those who reject secularism completely. Of course that point of view clashes with modern ideas about other faiths, philosophies and scientific viewpoints. Another side effect of this gradual approach to addressing religion in society is the development of the tax code. Religion has been grandfathered in as exempt due to all of the issues you mentioned along with the population concerns.

Now Canada is different specifically in that its Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a far more recent document and attempts to address more present day issues directly, rather than leaving them up to later interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Specifically, it goes beyond establishing freedom or religion to also include freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, assembly, the press, and association. That would seem to be an effort to address some of the concerns you brought up. Still the favorable tax treatment religion gains does exist.

Nevertheless, there are many secular equivalents in place to help balance the scales. Charitable groups, scientific researchers, universities, community organizations, and political advocacy groups all qualify for tax exempt status in the US. Of course the rules for each group vary slightly. For example, churches can lose their status if they directly advocate for political candidates from the pulpit. On the other hand, their participation in voter registration (so long as they don't take sides) and advocating particular political positions usually leaves them in safe water. It's certainly not a cut and dry set of rules however.

It also protects those different religions in that we don't all have to belong to one faith. There are a lot of things my tax dollars go to that I don't agree with in this country that I have no say over, and I don't see a whole lot of tax dollars being funnelled back into my church so...

Yeah, a lot of tax dollars go to things people disagree with, whether it's war or the prime minister's salary.

jcoates said:

there is no official state religion (in the US)

Click to expand...

I will believe so when not every presidential speech ends with "God bless America", when no social service grants (e.g., $2.2 billion in 2005 alone) are given by the government to faith-based organizations that often pick and choose who and what they will serve (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/...ed-or-the-catholic-church-who-are-the-victims, http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/innerchange-freedom-initiative-getting-the-boot/), when churches have to go through the same qualification scrutiny and financial auditing as other non-profit organizations in order to receive tax exemption, which ends up putting a greater tax burden on the poor. The untaxed church property is estimated at about $100 billion dollars.

As for claims that there are few legal protections for religious groups in an increasingly secular world, the Supreme Court just threw cold water on that idea today. They issued a unanimous ruling (a rarity in controversial cases these days) as I was typing this post stating that employees can not sue religious organizations for discrimination in hiring and firing for positions meant to advocated the faith positions of that church. Specifically, the plaintiff in the case was a woman who taught a faith based subject at a religious school. She ended up being diagnosed with narcolepsy and having to take time off for her condition. When she had recovered, she attempted to return to work. She was told that her position had been filled and there were no available vacancies for her. She threatened to sue for discrimination under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (one of the expansions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). She was subsequently fired. She then pursued assistance from the state which sued on her behalf for both discrimination and retaliation based on her disability. The court's ruling today states that religious institutions have the right to discriminate in hiring or employment issues involving those tasked with transmitting its message. They acknowledge the need to protect against discrimination, but say it must be balanced with religious freedom to choose who communicates the churches teaching. Note this appears to be a narrow ruling. On its face it does not seem that it would apply to discrimination claims brought by a janitor or a math teacher. Also, the plaintiff was not fired for any specific belief she held as far as I can tell. Simply because her health status interrupted her ability to complete her job, leading to replacement. The ruling appears to narrowly enforce the church's right to made hiring and firing decisions which may be discriminatory in a secular setting for positions meant to disseminate or advocate its point of view.

All of these issues are inextricably and often very messily tied together. Separating them out into clearly defined neat little categories is virtually impossible. It's frustrating for sure, but not surprising that the situation exists if you look at the big picture.

skatinginbc said:

Besides cultural, historical and grandfather legislative reasons, can someone explain to me why there should be such thing as "freedom of religion" from a pure logical point of view.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible to discuss this question divorced from history and culture.

The reason that we should never relax in zeal for the principle of religious freedom and separation of church and state is simply this. Consider the alternative. Iran is a good example. When a military dictator is overthrown in the middle east, we don't know whether to cheer that the bad guy is gone or prepare ourselves for the even worse guys, the Ayatollahs and clerics.

There is much to criticize about the good old U.S. of A. And yet...in America...

Do you want to go to church on Sunday morning and worship Jesus Christ? OK.

Do you want to go to the Mosque on Friday night and worship Allah? OK.

Do you want to go to the Synagogue on Saturday morning and worship YHVH? OK.

Do you want to go to the Zen-do on World Peace Day and sit with your Zen master? OK.

Do you want to stay home and watch TV, never plagued by a spiritual thought at all? OK.

Unfurl the stars and stripes! Ring the Liberty Bell! From sea to shining sea!

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~yke/photoqual/results/statue/29-Statue of Liberty6.jpg

To be fair you also have that freedom in Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Japan, South Africa, Brazil and dozens of other countries as well. We don't have the market cornered in religious liberty. In fact some nations that have official state religions actually exercise less social pressure to conform to broad religious standards than some regions or communities in the US.

skatinginbc said:

I will believe so when not every presidential speech ends with "God bless America", ...

Click to expand...

That's because President Obama is actually the Anti-Christ and he is trying to fool people.

What I think is quite strange is that Christians engage in public prayer, even though Jesus told them not to. Sessions of the U.S. Senate always open with a public prayer. Preachers pray aloud from the pulpit "so that men can hear them," etc.

But Jesus said (Matthew 6:5-6):

Jesus of Nazareth said:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;...

Click to expand...

jcoates said:

To be fair you also have that freedom in Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Japan, South Africa, Brazil and dozens of other countries as well.

Click to expand...

Quite so. Citizens of those countries should wave their flags and ring their versions of the Liberty Bell, too. And, like Americans, never relax in the defense of liberty. :yes:

Yeah, the more the merrier!

Actually, being a so-called secular state is what helps give us freedom of religion. (Other countries may go about it a different way, but this has worked well for us.) The fact that there is no established religion means that people can go about their lives peacefully while other people attending an entirely different house of worship do the same thing across the street. We don't have to waste time, treasure, and the blood of our children on needless efforts to assert or protect our rights against those other people. A state that doesn't favor any specific religion also means that people who were persecuted in other countries came here and flourished, benefiting us all. Many of these dissenters were Christians. For example, the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites were all, I think, anabaptists from central Europe. They believed in baptism at the age of consent, not in infancy. Today there are Amish, Old Order Mennonites and more modern assimilated Mennonites, and Hutterites in many parts of the U.S. and Canada. I'm not sure there are any at all in Germany. Nowadays the equivalent is a lot of ancient belief communities from the Middle East, such as Chaldean Christians from Iraq, Coptic Christians from Egypt, Jews from Yemen, Syria, and Iran, and so on, who have a better chance of freely practicing their faith here than they have in countries where they lived for millennia. We must be doing something right. (As are Canada, Australia, and the other countries mentioned by jcoates as well.)

People who have religious beliefs are safest when all religions and even no religion (atheism, agnosticism, or "don't care") are equally protected by the community and the government.

A ban on carrying knives at school discriminates against members of the Sikh religion, according to Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Commission (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/school-knife-ban-discriminatory-20110523-1ezs5.html).
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Sikh students are permitted to wear a kirpan, a ceremonial dagger, to school (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/03/02/kirpan-scoc060302.html)
"There are no laws banning veils or headscarves in the US, though there have been unsuccessful attempts in some states to ban Sharia. The sponsor of such a bill in Oklahoma wanted to prohibit women from wearing headscarves in driver's license photos. The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in 2010 banned veils that obscure the face for security reasons, but later changed it to accommodate Muslim women." (http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/canada-bans-burqa-citizenship-swear-not-public-405246)

Central Asian nomads have a tradition of carrying knives and a person might think he would be less a man without wearing one. Or I might insist on wearing a face veil because I think I am too ugly and it would hurt my self-esteem without it. Why are cultural traditions and personal beliefs not good enough reason, and yet religious beliefs can get away with a lot of rules? Why should someone with a religion be treated differently from me? If a Muslim woman can wear a face veil for her driver's license photo, why can't I?

These are all great questions that test the system, and we never needed to wrestle with them before. It will take a good bit of work and yelling to get things resolved.

My feeling, in the interest of common sense, is that a headscarf worn on a driver's license photo doesn't obscure the face, but a full veil like a burqa, covering everything but the eyes, is an exercise in futility in terms of an ID photo. What do we do in such a case? Certainly these days, the need for security must be taken into account. I haven't followed any specific legal rulings on this matter. Ironically, in the country of origin of the women who wear burqas, the matter might not even come up because women there might not be allowed to drive. Actually, the Quran never describes any kind of veil that women should wear. Women are simply told to dress modestly. Burqas, chadors, or simple headscarves are all cultural and regional. Among the Tuareg, I think it is, the men wear veils over their faces, not the women.

The fact is that laws have to take into account practical considerations and also the existing social contract. How can animal sacrifice not violate animal cruelty laws, for example. Or how can religious freedom and the need for a full-view ID photo be reconciled? The 21st century isn't for the faint of heart!

Religion is only one of many belief systems that form the identity of a person or a group, so why should a country's constitution specify "freedom of religion" when it can be simply replaced with or included in the "freedom of belief"? How about "freedom of cultural expressions"? Is religion more important than one's culture so that the former deserves special mention?
"Freedom of belief" + "Freedom of speech" = You are free to think and speak but may not have the freedom to act on it.
"Freedom of religion" = Does that mean you may act on it in the name of religion? Such ambiguity results in many discriminatory acts. For instance, a Toronto printer refused to print letterhead, envelopes, and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Canada). A New Brunswick florist refused to serve a same-sex couple's wedding because of her religious beliefs (http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffe..._flowers_to_same-sex_couples_wedding/7ec6b3e2). A California fertility clinic refused to provide services to a lesbian because of its fundamentalist religious views. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/health-care-antidiscrimination-laws-protecting-32296-2.html)
In 1995, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the exemption for Sikhs from wearing the "Mountie hat" as part of the RCMP dress requirements. If a Sikh is allowed to dress differently, why aren't others? Why can’t an Albertan Mountie wear a cowboy hat if being a cowboy is his religion?

Mathman said:

Iran is a good example. When a military dictator is overthrown in the middle east, we don't know whether to cheer that the bad guy is gone or prepare ourselves for the even worse guys, the Ayatollahs and clerics.

Click to expand...

I have great respect for and emotional attachment to ancient Iranian people due to my etymological research on the toponyms of China's Western Regions. They were friendly neighbors of China and left many beautiful footprints in Chinese history and language. Although the majority were Zoroastrian, many of them were Buddhist, Christian and Jewish before the Islamic conquest. I always feel sad for the modern Iranians, who are reined, suffocated and brainwashed under the name of God.

I feel sad for them too, BC. A pharmacist in our neighborhood is an Iranian Jew, and a local optician, from his name, is probably an Iranian Christian or other minority. They got here sometime after the Ayatollah seized power. Iran's loss is our gain, of course, but I imagine what they must have gone through to get out, and I wonder whether everyone in their family got out. I had Iranian friends in college in the days before the fall of the Shah, and I often wonder what happened to them and their families. This is not what the presence of the Almighty is supposed to do in the world.

Thanks, by the way, for educating me about (among many other things) the influence of ancient Persia on western Chinese culture and language.

skatinginbc said:

Religion is only one of many belief systems that form the identity of a person or a group, so why should a country's constitution specify "freedom of religion" when it can be simply replaced with or included in the "freedom of belief"? How about "freedom of cultural expressions"? Is religion more important than one's culture so that the former deserves special mention?

"Freedom of belief" + "Freedom of speech" = You are free to think and speak but may not have the freedom to act on it.

"Freedom of religion" = Does that mean you may act on it in the name of religion?

Click to expand...

An interesting post. Actually, in the case of the United States Constitution, you are exactly right as to what freedoms it guarantees.

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.

Click to expand...

So, when it comes to freedom of belief systems and freedom of cultural expression, you can talk about it, you can write about it in the newspaper, you can get together with others to discuss it, and you can write to the government to complain about it. But if you do it, you are on your own without Constitutional protection.

In religious matters, you can do all this and in addition you can "exercise" your beliefs, rituals and conventions freely.

Documents are written in particular places and times. Many articles of the U.S. Constitution show what the Founding Fathers were most afraid of. Evidently number 1 on the list -- the very first words of the Bill of Rights -- was that future sessions of Congress might pass a law establishing a state religion, force everyone to join, and punish people who didn't.

Two and a quarter centuries later, the course of the American Republic has been such that this danger has receded. Still, you never know. Just when you let your guard down they might start requiring all school children to chant in unison, "one nation under God..."

It has required repeated rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, sitting as arbiters of the Constitution, to make sure that local school boards and other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies do not require people to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Interestingly, these cases have mostly been brought not by atheists who don't want to praise God, but by religious groups who object to pledging allegiance to anyone but God -- in particular, not to the federal government.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
The American Citizenship oath: "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies....I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
It's funny that the US recognizes duel citizenship and yet requires new citizens to "hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". I wonder how many Canadian Americans cheated when taking that oath of renouncing their allegiance to the Queen and their home country.

This is the Canadian Citizenship oath: "I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors." Hehe, how many people bla-bla-blaed through that part due to their "English ability"?

skatinginbc said:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

The American Citizenship oath: "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies....I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Click to expand...

Jesus of Nazareth, from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:34-37)

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King...

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Click to expand...

James 5:12:

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Click to expand...

In U.S. courts, when a witness is asked to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God," people who accept the plain words of the Bible as their guide are permitted to say instead, "I will tell the truth."

Strange bedfellows. The people who object to swearing "by God" are the conscientious atheists and the Bible-based Christians. All the folks in between, when the government tells them to swear an oath, just shrug and "go along to get along."

So far, the only logical reason I've gathered behind "freedom of religion" seems to be "freedom from religion". No wonder the US is so eager to preach "freedom of religion" to the Middle East countries . Will the US be interested in selling "democracy" and "religious freedom" to Vatican?

I just discovered that Canada (ranked 8th in the world) is more democratic than the US (19th) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index). Canada (ranked 6th in the world) is also better in economic freedom than the US (10th) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom). The US (ranked 20th in the World) is slightly better than Canada (21th) in press freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index).

It's ironic that the US and Canada, the strong advocates of freedom of speech, are not even among the "free" countries in terms of press freedom. They are only in a satisfactory situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indices_of_Freedom). I'd better watch out what I write from now on.

Watch out what you say on the internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJL5o5EGzoM).

It's no wonder that freedom of religion was on the founding fathers' minds. They were trying to craft a country out of 13 states which did not have uniform views on the subject, and whose views on the subject dated back to the founders of those states. Furthermore, as colonies, originally they had "Established Religions".

In Massachusetts Bay Colony and Connecticut, the "Established Religion" was a very strict Jonathon Edwards form of Congregationalism, sometimes called Puritanism. Plymouth Colony was similar, but not as strict, at least at the beginning. However, both colonies also had the Congregational hallmark of believing in local, democratic control of the single churches. These beliefs sometimes became at odds with one another. And in fact, the "mother church" at Plymouth voted to become Unitarian later. (Unitarianism was founded after the Constitution was written, but not by much).

In Massachusetts, at least at the beginning of the colony, it was forbidden to celebrate Christmas, which was regarded as a pagan festival, and church attendance at the Established Church was mandatory.

It was typical in Massachusetts to tar and feather & otherwise persecute Quakers and other dissenters from the established church. Needless to say, Quakers founded a different state, Pennsylvania. And Roger Williams founded Rhode Island on a basis of religious tolerance, which is why the first Jewish synagogue in the US was founded in Newport, RI. Ethan Allen and the founders of Vermont were Deists and the old church in Burlington is a Unitarian church. Delaware was founded by Catholics, who were persecuted in some other areas of the country. And, AFAIR, Virginia was founded by Episcopalians.

If you wanted to join all these different interests into one country, you had to start by assuring every colony/state that they would not be forced to practice someone else's religion by the new government. And because you had Deists and the Rhode Islanders involved, you had to be even more tolerant to draw in RI and VT (and in fact, VT did not ratify the Constitution until AFTER the Bill of Rights was added. VT had its own Constitution, which banned slavery, prior to the US Constitution.

And, at the time, there were organized Indian tribes, particularly the Seven nations in upstate NY and the Cherokees in NC, who were not Christians at all. It was not until the 1800's that there was an effort to expel all Indians from the eastern US who were not Christians. At the time of the founding, there would have been a mindfulness of their Indian allies. (Many of the Indians were on the British side, however) In CT, the Mohegans fought for the British and the Pequots fought for the Americans. Not surprising, since they were traditional enemies of each other).

In Europe, of course, different sects of Christians had been murdering one another for years. Many of the colonists had fled Europe to get away from that sort of stuff.

It's not surprising that the Constitution was written with Freedom of Religion written in it.

And BTW, the pledge of allegiance did not have under God added to it until 1954, at the instigation of the Knights of Columbus, the Sons & Daughters of the Revolution, & the Prayer Breakfast group in Washington, DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

I remember this well, since as a child, I first learned it without the words "under God" and then had to learn to insert them later.