Freedom of Religion

[Mathman]

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?

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.

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.

[skatinginbc]

"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"?

[Mathman]

"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."

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.

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.

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."

[skatinginbc]

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/Worldwi..._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).

[dorispulaski]

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.

[skatinginbc]

It is interesting that the Pledge of Allegiance does not include equality because Francis Bellamy, the original writer of the Pledge, thought that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance).

[Olympia]

And actually the Baptists, who are now so predominant in the U.S., came here because of persecution in Europe because of a crucial difference between them and the state religions of the European nations. Baptists and Anabaptists (people such as the Amish) believed in baptism when the person was old enough to profess belief--which could be in childhood or adulthood. Catholics and Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans believed in infant baptism, to protect a child in the event of an early death.

[dorispulaski]

This is true. The Baptist church in Old Mystic, CT, (a village that is part of the towns of Groton & Stonington, CT) was the first Baptist Church in CT (founded 1705). At the time, CT had the "Established Church" and a new church had to make a request of the government in Hartford, CT. A request was made to Hartford, which may have never answered, in any case the Baptists just kept meeting.

http://oldmysticbaptistchurch.org/in...=46&Itemid=108

[skatinginbc]

Atheists are the most hated minority in the US, more so than Muslims, homosexuals, and African-Americans. "Several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom..._United_States).

My religious belief has been influenced by the Confucius teaching: 敬鬼神而遠之 "Staying at a respectful distance from ghosts and deities." I don't deny nor acknowledge the existence of a deity. Does "freedom of religion" apply to me? No religion, no special protection--that was how I felt in the US Bible Belt.

[Mathman]

Atheists are the most hated minority in the US, more so than Muslims, homosexuals, and African-Americans.

I doubt that, despite the studies quoted. Most atheists just go about their business without paying any attention to religion and without religious people paying any attention to them. Nobody goes around looking for atheists to beat up, or atheistic meeting houses to fire bomb. Atheism is not, by its a nature, the sort of thing that anyone is going to get up on a soap box and start preaching in favor of, thus inciting strong passions in those of a different persuasion.

Natually I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one, but other than that...

In fact I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the "religion" of the majority of Americans is something like, "God? Yeah, I suppose he exists. He doesn't bother me and I don't bother him."

My religious belief has been influenced by the Confucius teaching: 敬鬼神而遠之 "Staying at a respectful distance from ghosts and deities." I don't deny nor acknowledge the existence of a deity. Does "freedom of religion" apply to me? No religion, no special protection -- that was how I felt in the US Bible Belt.

Now I'm curious. When you lived in the Bible Belt, did you feel the need of any special protection? Did people accost you and threaten you and browbeat you? (They may have invited you to attend their church in the hope that you would see the light, or press the occasion Watchtower upon you, but a person does not require constitution protections against minor nuisances like that.)

I would have guessed that the typical reaction (if any) to your Confucian tenets would be something like, "Oh those Chinese -- what a strange lot they are." (Or -- "Oh those poor Chinese; they are all going to Hell when they die. Oh well.")

[Olympia]

BC, to add to your point, I'd also mention that in some parts of the Bible Belt (not in formerly French Louisiana, of course), Catholics would be looked on askance. Also, if you notice, a lot of evangelicals are having trouble with presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, because they are Mormons. I imagine that these days, it's exponentially harder for Muslims in those areas (and Sikhs, who because of their turbans are often mistaken for Muslims by some un-savvy people).

[skatinginbc]

How Are Atheists Discriminated Against?

The story of a Mississippi couple: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ
The story of a University professor in Oklahoma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDANe75bUwY

"They have freedom of speech, you know. I can't do anything about it. Do you have a religion that acknowledges a god? No, then your belief is not protected by the law," stated an Oklahoma sheriff to whom I complained about the regular shouting and harassment from a group of church goers (Obviously we were an interracial couple. It all started from racial slurs and gradually expanded to our religious practice or the lack thereof). Of course, the sheriff's interpretation of law might not be correct, but it shows that the phrase "freedom of religion" could lead to discriminatory acts as I have argued in post #13.

Did I tell the story before that a little girl saw me in a shopping mall and screamed "Mom, an alien"? Her mother speedily protected her with both arms and stared at me in hostility as if I were a monster that would attack anybody at any minute. I'm glad we finally did a library search (no internet at that time) and found the best place to live in the world. "Why do you choose Vancouver?" asked an immigration officer. "Because it is the best place to live in the world." He was happy to hear that.

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article VI, Section 2: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

In fact I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the "religion" of the majority of Americans is something like, "God? Yeah, I suppose he exists. He doesn't bother me and I don't bother him."

That's actually very close to my belief.

[Olympia]

I'm sorry you went through that, bc, though unfortunately not surprised. It's all too easy for people who live in homogeneous communities to view their own way of life as the only way. And if one happens not only to think differently but to look different--it's hard to keep a low profile. I'm glad you found a place where that doesn't apply. Where I live is the same. The two owners of the small company I work for are an interracial couple, and two of my co-workers are also each part of an interracial couple: one white/African American and one white/Asian American. It's just everyday living here. I like to think that communities like your current one and mine are the future. Unfortunately, they're not the present everywhere, yet.

[Mathman]

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article VI, Section 2: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

I am surprised. I do not see how this passes (federal) Constitutional muster. I bet it will be challenged in court some day, in a few hundred years, after the citizens of South Carolina and Texas mellow out a little.

About your own personal experiences, next time you could say, "My religion? Oh, I'm a Confucianist." They will probably reply, "Well, we all worship the same God, under different names around the world."

Edited to add: Better yet, say, "I'm a Zoroastrian -- you know, like the Three Wise Men in the Bible who gave gifts to the baby Jesus."

[Mathman]

OK, I'm on a roll. Tell them that you are a Buddhist and you believe in Supreme Non-Being.

About keeping a respectful distance from occult spirits, St. Augustine, in the fifth century C.E., wrote:

The good Christian should beware of mathematicians... The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell."