Rather than spend my entire post bashing religious peoples, which we all know I am wont to do, I would rather just highlight some of the more egregious examples of religious initiatives that are no longer surreptitiously creeping into our governance, but are now stampeding through while flying the faux flag of "Religious Freedom!!!"
For those friends and readers who are religious, please know that this is not an attack on you. It is rare that I maintain relationships with friends who are unable to see beyond their own beliefs to make critical analyses, wise judgments, and neutral decisions based on reason rather than blind faith, particularly as it relates to politics.
There is, however, a terrifying influence of Christian Dominionism (a movement first defined in the 1990s as "...a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian." (Clarkson, F. & Diamond, S.) This approach to social engineering is entrenched in the belief that America always was, has been, and forever will be a Christian nation, and attempts to accomplish its goals not by using consensus to establish its hold on the U.S., but by silencing all opposition by shouting it down and attempting to publicly destroy all those who disagree with their beliefs.
This leads us to our next reason:
<hr>
Number 8: By The Grace of God...Get Lost!!!
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.
- First Amendment, Bill of Rights, The U.S. Constitution
<hr>
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution have been the basis of many arguments and various interpretations since it was established that the first ten constitutional amendments were collectively named as such.
The First Amendment, however, is perhaps the trickiest to tackle because it encompasses so many of what we consider to be fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every American. It touches on religion, speech, the press, peaceable assemble, and the right to petition the Government.
This one amendment, more than any other, defines what it means to be an American; it is the amendment that we believe sets us above every other nation in the world - this is what makes us number one.
It is always the amendment that is the most frequently misinterpreted, particularly as it pertains to religion.
The portion of the First Amendment pertaining to religion is split into two clauses - The Establishment and The Free Exercise Clauses - and both of these clauses play important roles in how government and religion intermingle. No one clause is more important than the other; no one clause can best operate without the other.
<hr>
(a.) The Establishment Clause:
Originally, the Establishment Clause pertained only to the Federal government as a number of states had virtually establish state churches, already. It wasn't until 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that the Supreme Court extended the clause to include state governance, as well.
The key question in that case involved Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for costs incurred as a result of attending religious schools violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment (as it pertained to the issue of using public school transportation).
This case is important because Justice Hugo Black's sweeping ruling would define how courts would interpret the Establishment Clause for decades to come:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
This ruling set a precedent that still guides many decisions made by courts, today. It is important to me because I am a Separationist, as opposed to an Accommodationist.
As a Separationist, I believe firmly that there should be Jeffersonian "wall of separation" and a Madisonian "great barrier" between the Church and the State. I do not believe the government has any business telling me or anyone else that we much follow the religions and moral tenets set forth by any one religion; nor do I believe that any one religion has any business forcing other people to live their public or personal lives to abide by their faith.
Much to the chagrin of my family and a few of my friends, I am an atheist (Shock! Surprise!). I don't make it my life's work to go around and say to people, "Hey! Have you accepted the likelihood that nothing awaits us after we're dead, that all this "Lord and Savior" talk could be bunch on nonsense, and that there may not be gods or a single god?"
When religious organizations or legislators attempt to codify their faith-based initiatives into law, I firmly believe that this violates the Establishment Clause. Abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, creationism, contraception, stem-cell research, prayer in school or in government-funded settings, evolution vs. creationism, and personhood amendments - these are all fine examples of issues where religious leaders, organizations, and legislators have taken it upon themselves to determine what's right and wrong for everyone else.
To differentiate between pro- and anti-[issue] legislation means, let's us first use the issue of gay marriage:
Legalizing marriage enables all citizens of a state/nation to join with one other partner in a legal partnership that is recognized by the government, and should require those citizens to abide by all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities, regardless of their unchosen sexual orientation.
Prohibiting marriage, by means of altering a constitution (state or Federal) or making the recognition of such a union illegal, prevents a specific category of people from enjoying the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of a legal partnership that is recognized by their government.
See the difference?
Another example of the difference between pro- and anti-[issue] legislation is the recent attempt by certain states to mandate the teaching of Creation "Science" in public school.
Recently, the state of Tennessee enacted legislation that clears the way for teachers to "[help] students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories."
In other words, it would allow teachers to teach "Creation Science" (AKA - Intelligent Design, AKA - Creationism, AKA - Creation Myth) alongside the actual scientific theory of evolution.
One of the primary arguments made by those who support the teaching of Creationism/ID/CS is that "evolution is just a theory and it cannot be proven."
The trouble with this is that CS/ID/Creationism is not in any way science. Here's why:
In order for something to be taught as a scientific theory, it has to meet a very specific set of criteria called "The Scientific Method:"
1.) You must pose a question. In this case: "How did human beings and other creatures come into existence?"
2.) You must research - pretty self-explanatory.
3.) You must form a hypothesis. In the case of Creationists, this would be: "I hypothesize that human beings and all creatures were put on earth by God."
4.) You must develop an experiment to test your hypothesis. For Creationists, their experiment...well......
And this is where the breakdown occurs. You can't even get beyond this step to an Analysis or a scientific Conclusion, because there's no way to test their hypothesis; there is no way to prove or disprove whether or not this is true. As of this time, neither God, nor the Devil, has come to earth, show him or herself, and shown that they exist beyond people's faith that they do.
This holds true not just for Christianity, but for every religion with a creation myth (and I have yet to discover one that doesn't have a creation myth). There is no tangible prove to test and prove or disprove.
Therefore, it is not science, and does not belong in a science classroom, at any grade level. In a Religious Studies or a Philosophy class? Certainly. But, not in a science course.
Which brings us to the second clause of the First Amendment:
<hr>
b.) The Free Exercise Clause:
This is where things get really trick, because it's a hard issue to pin down...at least legally.
Is it a violation of the free exercise clause to ensure that all health insurance providers cover contraceptives for women?
In my view, no. It basically makes sure that all insurance providers are following the same set of laws and rules that everyone else has to follow.
Is it a violation of the free exercise clause to force the Catholic Church to physically dole out birth control pills to their female employees?
In my view, yes. This is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The funny thing about this clause is that it is very broadly interpreted to basically suit whomever is making the argument that their freedom of religion is being violated. For Mormons, it was the issue of having multiple wives; for Catholics, it's whatever issue is currently stuck in their craw at the moment.
The Free Exercise Clause is simple, for me to understand and interpret - the government cannot tell you or your church how to worship. It's as simple as that. You can believe whatever you want. What it can tell you, however, is that you cannot force your beliefs on others...because you would be violating their Free Exercise of religion.
I get it...Catholics are going to disagree with me. Well...sorry to say this, but they're wrong. There's no two ways about it - they are wrong on this and, in my opinion, on virtually every other issue that comes their way.
But, you see, that's the great thing about the First Amendment - it allows me to disagree with them, haul them into court, and win on the basis that their arguments are not based in legal standing, but in pushing their own religious agendas down my throat. And, luckily for me, they almost always lose their court cases in the higher courts.
<hr>
The funny thing about religious zealotry - and by this, I specifically do not refer to any one whole religion, but rather to individuals who attempt to use their religion as a social, political, and sometimes literal bludgeoning device - is that it isn't just confined to one religion.
Unfortunately, the only type of religious extremism we hear about in America since 9/11 relates to Islam. We hear that it's a religion of extremism; that their religion rules their countries; that they use fear and oppression to control their citizens; that they spread fear of the United States and Western civilization; that they believe their battles are endorsed by Allah.
The problem is, if you turn the phrases a little bit, you get Christianity...or Orthodox Judaism...or Mormonism.
We live in a nation where we are supposed to have not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. When we talk about fighting Muslim Terrorists, we leave out a whole history of violence committed by Christians and Jews, alike, over two thousand years of war, destruction, and genocide.
It wasn't a Muslim extremist who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City; nor was it a Muslim extremist who shot up Virginia Tech, or any of the high schools across the country in the past four years; and it certainly wasn't Muslim extremists who shot Dr. George Tiller in both arms in 1993, or walked into a church and shot him in the head in 2009.
And this is another reason why we're not Number One; we pride ourselves of being a nation of religious tolerance, yet we are anything but tolerant or accepting. We, as much as any nation, operate in an "U.S. vs. Them" social contract, where we are right, and they are wrong. Certain people of faith in our nation are insistent that their form of Christianity should be the basis upon which we operate in our society, other religions and atheists be damned.
<hr>
Next up, Reason Number 7: We SUCK At Nation Building
No comments:
Post a Comment