January 10, 2004
Selective application of rights (By Guest Blogger Candace)
The last few months have convinced me that one of the key distinctions between today's "conservatives" and "liberals" has to do with religion. Of course, this is only under one definition of "conservative" and "liberal," but it's the one issue that keeps me squarely in the Republican camp. Not because I want to "push my religion" on anyone else -- but because I don't want the religion of secularism pushed on me.
One of the key points consistently separating me from my Democrat friends is the idea of "separation of church and state." Even if we accept that said separation is essential to this country, that separation can take many forms. One form is that of state non-intervention in direct matters of religion. Another is eradication of religion from our society and from social decisions. I firmly believe the latter is antithetical to the freedom of religion we are supposed to be protecting. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion; the state has no right to tell us what to believe, so it can't tell us not to believe. It can't tell us not to make religion part of our lives, part of our interactions in the public sphere, and part of the way that we see politics. After all, in the political sense, religious world views are just that - world views - and deserve the same playing field as non-religious ones. Everyone bases their ideas on something, and I will not be told that religion is the one invalid field from which to draw my ideas.
As it happens, I'm reading an extraordinarily interesting book right now that confirms what I've always thought about the origins of our country, and then takes it a step further. The text is Akhil Reed Amar's The Bill of Rights, and it's a detailed textual and historical study of the Bill of Rights in context. I'm not that far into it, but this morning what I read really struck me: most states at the origin of this nation had state religions, but they varied. In a sense, people were to "vote with their feet" to live in a state where the religious community fit them. Establishing a national religion would have been impossible, so that's not necessarily what was at stake, but federal rules based on religion would have favored some states over others -- and the states'-rights advocates were staunchly against this. However, 11 of the 13 original had religious requirements for office-holding at the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Only later, after the passage of the 14th Amendment and the application of other "rights" at the state level, did state and local governments lose their right to establish religion. We constantly hear Jefferson's name repeated as the man whose skepticism "proves" that our government never meant to give religion a place in public life. Yet Jefferson himself was not opposed to individual states' establishment of religion.
Why, then, is our discourse today so violently anti-religious? We hear the "Bible Belt" spoken of with complete disdain, as if people living in the South are somehow violating our freedoms by choosing in large numbers to believe in a specific religion. This is not only a dangerous road, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom is.
If we genuinely believe that in the exercise of religious freedom, others are violating some set of abstract social rights we want to have (or social goals we want to achieve), we're living under the wrong constitution and in the wrong country with the wrong history. This country has never depended on the suppression of faith for its strength. Rather, it is the freedom to practice it in communities that was vigorously defended in state constitutional conventions and is vigorously defended today. We do live in a different USA now, with more states and more diversity within single areas. But if we are going to really do a good job "celebrating diversity" then we need to tolerate even the most fundamental of differences and respect one another's right to believe and to make our beliefs manifest. Just as the anti-religious left has the right to pursue its social goals, so does the "Religious Right" have the right to try to make society a place where they can pursue happiness, too.
If the left really can't stand religion or religious paradigms in the public sphere, all the rhetoric about tolerance and diversity crumbles beneath them, revealing an anti-religious agenda that is just not just rooted in black and white concepts of what is right and wrong, but in who gets to participate in public life. And that, my friends, is discrimination at its ugliest.
Posted by Karol at January 10, 2004 03:01 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags:
We hear the "Bible Belt" spoken of with complete disdain, as if people living in the South are somehow violating our freedoms by choosing in large numbers to believe in a specific religion.
If the "Bible Belt" is spoken of with disdain, it is quite likely because in that region religion (particularly Christianity) often goes hand in hand with certain ugly characteristics, including sexism, racism, antisemitism and homophobia.
There is a big difference between accepting "religion or religious paradigms in the public sphere" and state-sponsored religion, or state actions that give implicit (or explicit) preference to one religion over another. For example, I have a very close friend who is offended by the fact that "God" is mentioned in civil marriage ceremonies, on the walls of our courthouses, on our money, and in virtually every public address by the President and others. She does not believe in "God", and does not wish to be forced to implicitly accept that belief. I disagree with her, and we often argue over whether atheism or agnosticism can or should be treated with the same respect and deference as (what I call) actual belief(s). However, I would be very much against having "In Allah We Trust" emblazoned on our money and government offices, or crucifixes or mezuzzahs hanging in courtrooms or other public offices.
So, if you are making the case for religion and faith in general, I'm all for it. If you are making the case for a more Christian USA, or if your piece is an apologia for people like Pat Robertson, well, then you lost me at "Hello".
Posted by: Rick Blaine at January 10, 2004 09:34 PMFirst, let it be said that Amar is a genius. His work in criminal procedure is simply amazing.
But, let it also be known that the 14th Amendment is still part of the Constitution, adopted under duress as it was. Hey -- Germany and Japan both became democratic under similar regimes of duress. And the 14th Amendment did extend a number of protections against the government to the state level.
Now, Candace, you're saying you have a problem with secularism being forced upon you. You don't like the fact that people speak of the Bible Belt with disdain. Now, I rarely speak of the Bible Belt with disdain, mostly because I rarely use the term. Otherwise, nearby individuals would probably hear some displeasure in my voice. I am not a fan of evangelical Christianity. I am not saying people shouldn't be evangelical. I'm just saying that the right to free speech doesn't end where the right to non-interference in religion begins. The government should not tell you or anyone else what religion to practice, nor should it actively aid you in attempts to tell others what religion to practice. Thus, you can pray in school. You just can't take my class time to lead a prayer. Thus, you can go door to door in dorms at a public university and disseminate religious literature, even if a vendor pitching commercial products would be denied a similar privilege. On the other hand, you may fairly be denied from forcing the President of the College to invoke God before every announcement.
And, similarly, public officials may worship as they choose and make decisions in elected office as they desire. Many currently do rely upon their faith, rightfully, to make decisions. What the state may not do is tell them that they have to rely upon their faith.
My question, then, is what exactly do you want to change in this country? From a policy perspective, I can think of little that needs to change.
Are there a lot of idiots who think that religion has no place in public life? Yeah, but there are also a lot of idiots who think that people without religion also should not have a place in public life. Those ideas are equally offensive. But I do know that the 1st Amendment, while protecting my right to be non-religious or religious in my own right (rite?) and still involved in public life also protects all those dumbasses right to tell me that I am takng this country straight to Hell.
So, then, my question to you: religious litmus tests for public office?
Posted by: Matt at January 12, 2004 03:34 AMMatt, what kind of religious litmus test would it be? Everyone has a religion, even if it's a religion that says all religion is bunk. Like yours. :) I do know that in Amar's work, he goes on to explain how radically the 14th amendment changed our Constitution and neither he nor I would make the case that states in this nation have the right (these days) to tell a politician or any other person what religion to have.
I do not write "apologia"s as a rule. However, because of the very free speech right that Matt is discussing, Pat Robertson and the Pope can both say whatever they want to, and civilians and public officials alike can listen to or not listen to them as they please.
Rick, I think we are on the same page. The USA is already a very Christian nation, a very religious nation in general (the Economist did a really interesting special report on the USA a couple of months ago, emphasizing that very point). And I think that minority religious rights are tied up in the rights given to religion in general, and hostility toward Christianity is ultimately harmful to those faiths as well.
Matt, freedom from religion is a consistent argument made from the 1st amendment (wrongly) by many of the policymakers I've come into contact with. You'll remember my outrage when your co-blogger argued with me that the Pope, and the religion he presides over, shouldn't try to influence Congressmen.
Voting to elect people of faith is not anti-Constitutional. Attempting to get our laws to discriminate against religion is. And I'm tired of hearing about religion having no place in public life, which seems to be the number one agenda of the university, and its number one objection to President Bush. I think the "too much faith" argument against the Bush administration is disgusting -- like racism for Christianity. And it's that I'm arguing with.
Speak out with your vote for people you agree with. But if "Congress shall make no law respecting," neither should it legislate against. Religion in general is a huge part of this nation's history and, let's not forget, national identity. While that shouldn't obscure the minority, it does mean that it is an institution we have decided to respect... and it's one that well deserves it.
Posted by: candace at January 12, 2004 06:06 PMCandace,
I think, then, that we agree that current policy is fundamentally correct. The problem is people who think current policy either needs to do more to ban people's religious beliefs or to spread their own. It is worth remembering, as you point out, that atheism is a religion. In that sense, then, the protection against official religion is not a freedom from religion, but a freedom from the imposition of others' religions, and it is a right that applies as strongly to atheists as it does to Catholics.
Now, do I think it would be inappropriate for the Pope to tell Congresspeople that they must vote a certain way? Yes. Should the Pope be banned from doing so? No. I believe that the roll of religion in public life is to instill values and belief systems. It is to create the philosophical and moral dialogue within which we can discuss policy, but I do not believe it is wise, from either a political or a religious viewpoint, for church's to often endorse specific legislation (note: liberal churches are as bad about this as conservative churches). I, for one, would hope that a policymaker who goes to visit a member of the clergy is given direction and aid in coming to grips with the proper decision, not simply given an answer. Likewise, I would hope that a church would help me determine how to live a good life, not tell me what to do.
Posted by: Matt at January 12, 2004 10:32 PM4281 adipex
Posted by: phentermine cheap at December 2, 2004 04:27 AM
