"Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Yesterday, Cornelius brought this article by George Weigel to our attention. The following assertion in particular caught my eye:
Thus the new pope must be a champion of religious freedom for all, insisting with John Paul II and Benedict XVI that there can be neither true freedom nor true democracy without religious freedom in full. That means the right of both individuals of conscience and religious communities to live their lives according to their most deeply held convictions, and the right to bring those convictions into public life without civil penalty or cultural ostracism.
What does "freedom of religion" actually mean? Note how broad Weigel's definition is, whatever its merit.
A person's religious foundation — a fundamental and comprehensive definition of reality and the moral implications of that perception — affects every aspect of that person's life, in both public and private affairs. Is "religious freedom" a hopelessly vague and unenforceable term?
Consider Steyn's now-famous example of cultural collision in the British Empire:
In a culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
At the time, both sides of the situation would have cited religious (fundamental) beliefs about human nature in the justification of their actions. One set of religious values was imposed upon another. Doesn't that constitute a breach of religious freedom? Yet who would argue that General Napier was wrong?
Though early Americans might not have considered themselves culturally homogeneous, they certainly were by the standards of modern America. Early Americans generally shared Judeo-Christian roots. Now, we have growing populations of atheists, Muslims, New World religions, Asian religions, etc. Is legally significant conflict not now inevitable, as it was in colonial India? Is it not sometimes necessary for one set of fundamental perceptions to be asserted over another?
Note that in the Bill of Rights the freedoms of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of political petition are included in a single Amendment as if they are multiple aspects of a single freedom. What is the significance of this? It seems misleading how these many phrases of the 1st Amendment are never discussed in unison.
Can anything be legally justified purely for its relation to a religion (theistic or not), however pivotal to the practice of that faith, while another religion holds that action to be unjust?
I will do what I can to defend my fellow Catholics from being forced to pay for abortifacents and contraceptives. But the 1st Amendment seems a weak justification, both legally and rationally.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (19)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Aaron, I appreciate your dilemma because I share it. Barring going to jail and losing everything or fighting a huge legal fight and losing everything, I am not sure what might be done.
My prayers and my vote haven't kept this creeping deity of Obama's from taking shape. I assume it is an opportunity to share in the sufferings still to be undergone for the sake of the Body of Christ, and will treat it as such.
My religion will be my defense should I get hauled off to court, where I will probably be looking up to heaven to see if He is coming. If not, I'll have a stake in imitating our brothers and sisters who also looked up, and were given what was needed when it was needed.
dt
May '11
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
If you believe in the principle of individual liberty than I think religious freedom is a redundant concept.
May '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
You touch on a much more serious underlying issue we face, but that nobody wants to talk openly about: Can a republic survive without a homogeneous, virtuous, culture?
The Judeo Christian foundation we were founded on included the concept that for every right there is a responsibility and that culture was so much a part of our fabric that there was no need to memorialize it in writing. The Constitutional limits on a centralized government should've been sufficient.
A republic that at least neglects the Constitution and at most outright violates and abuses it is going to be short lived.
Those same Judeo Christian foundations are becoming relics and those that value them are a shrinking minority.
Jan '11
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Aaron Miller:
Note that in the Bill of Rights the freedoms of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of politicalpetition are included in a single Amendment as if they are multiple aspects of a single freedom. What is the significance of this? It seems misleading how these many phrases of the 1st Amendment are never discussed in unison.
Complicating the discussion is that the Supreme Court doesn't always treat them in unison, either.
Consider: the press believes that the freedom of the press applies only to professional journalists. They want a "shield law" that allows them legal protections only "professional journalists" would enjoy. The Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers seems to support that.
The problem is that this interpretation is completely left-field. The other aspects of the first amendment are all about what rights an individual would enjoy - right to religion, speech, etc. And then, in the same paragraph, we're supposed to believe that "press" right belongs to a "profession" instead of an individual? (A profession that was, at the time, beneath contempt.)
No. This is one freedom, and it belongs to individuals.
Nov '11
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Aaron Miller:
Can anything be legally justified purely for its relation to a religion (theistic or not), however pivotal to the practice of that faith, while another religion holds that action to be unjust?
Does the practice infringe on the rights of the followers of the religion that find it unjust? That's a fairly simple test to evaluate the tougher cases, isn't it?
I think the Founders specifically mentioned freedom of religion for two main reasons: first, because competing religious views were (and are) a frequent cause of both oppression and of conflict, and, second, because there is almost no worse tyranny than forcing people to do something which is against their conscience.
Edited on February 14, 2013 at 8:13pmNov '11
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Aaron,
Your question brought to mind an intercession in the Liturgy of the Hours: "To those enduring bodily or spiritual chains, give the freedom of the sons and daughters of God." With a grounding in the "law written on the human heart", I'm not certain we can/should tease one apart from another...Just a thought.
Jan '11
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Aaron Miller:
Can anything be legally justified purely for its relation to a religion (theistic or not), however pivotal to the practice of that faith, while another religion holds that action to be unjust?
I will do what I can to defend my fellow Catholics from being forced to pay for abortifacents and contraceptives. But the 1st Amendment seems a weak justification, both legally and rationally.
Well said, Aaron. I hope you have better success with this argument than I did.
Nov '11
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
By the way, as to the HHS mandate, I'd agree that it's contrary to freedom on other grounds than the 1st Amendment as well. It's the violation of the individual conscience that makes it so particularly offensive, though.
Oct '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
As I recall, the founders had quite a quandry at establishing a multi-religious republic. Quite a few traditional Anglican congregants thought that Quakers, because they would not swear oaths, would completely undermine the application of law as understood under Common Law. The Baptists were similarly anathematized, as I understand it. Lest we forget, the common slur against Catholics was a belief that they were sworn to follow the orders of foreign potentates, something which even JFK had to downplay.
I just hope the new Pope articulates what the Church stands for and resists calls by Muslims to approve "anti-blasphemy" laws. It'd be nice if he denounced the EU, but I won't hold my breath.
As an atheist, my self-interest is that the Pope should actually be Catholic. A squishy Pope who wants to please Muslims is the biggest threat to me as an American, the way I see it.
May '10
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Tom Meyer
Well said, Aaron. I hope you have better success with this argument than I did.
February of last year, almost as if this was an annual discussion!
I noticed that the first comment in your thread includes a link to yet another Ricochet thread. That's one of the things I love about Ricochet: how so many conversations overlap to create a larger, ongoing discourse.
May '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Aaron Miller:
Note that in the Bill of Rights the freedoms of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and ofpoliticalpetition are included in a single Amendment as if they are multiple aspects of a single freedom. What is the significance of this? It seems misleading how these many phrases of the 1st Amendment are never discussed in unison.
. · · 21 minutes ago
I always thought that the rights in the 1st Amendment were combined because they were so obvious. I always thought of the 1st Amendment as the 'duh Amendment' of course those are inalieble rights and the very reason(s) we declared our independence, but if a couple states need them in the final document for ratification - Ok.
The rights that are broken out individually, specifically the 2nd and 4th were so critical that they had to broken out on their own for empahsis.
If the Bill of Rights was an afterthought to get the Constitution ratified they could've been put in another Article, but somebody went to an awful lot of trouble to enumerate them in the Bill of Rights.
May '10
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
I agree, provided that one's concept of individual liberty includes the freedom to act in association with others.
Then again, how many rights listed in the Constitution do not boil down to individual liberty? Unfortunately, it is indeed necessary to spell out the various manifestations of that very general principle.
Edited on February 14, 2013 at 9:11pmJun '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Thanks Aaron, great post. You ask, "Can anything be legally justified purely for its relation to a religion ... however pivotal to the practice of that faith, while another religion holds that action to be unjust?" Anything or everything (in the sense of completely being unconstrained) cannot. But many, or even most can. The critical distinction lies in whether an irreversible and inescapable coercive requirement is imposed upon a person . All religions have at least some requirements which are contradictory to the tenets of other sects, but rarely secular law. Most of the time this is of no consequence because it doesn't affect the other. Jewish or Muslim dietary laws do not infringe on my liberty because I am neither. If I were Jewish or Muslim, I could seek refuge from them as a free agent if I chose. Just as a Catholic may illicitly (per Church teaching) practice contraception or switch denominations. The price being rejection by the sect. Steyn's Hindu sutee example, or say female circumcision or honor killing among Muslims, impose irreversible coercive harm on an individual. The victim's life, as the higher value, trumps religious dogma. Short of that though religious freedom should prevail.
Jun '10
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Early Americans generally believed in the Great Spirit. Then Europeans arrived uninvited and murdered them in the name of their God.
Religious freedom is no more welcome in this country than is free speech. Say something or worship something that offends someone with any sort of governmental power and end up in jail.
Mar '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
The fly in the ointment here is Islam.
Most religions, particularly Christianity, make it clear that their members should obey the secular authorities unless that authority requires them to take actions that are against what their deity commands. Thus, "religious freedom" is usually a private subset of "freedom" generally.
Because Islam is both an oppressive political and religious system, "religious freedom" often conflicts with what non muslims see as "freedom" in the generic sense.
As is evident in the UK, as the muslim population of a country grows, what passes for "religious freedom" becomes more and more a form of oppression.
Dec '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
The 1st amendment rights all come under the rubric of freedom of ideas, which includes the ability to publicly discuss and promulgate those ideas. CJS is drawing the right line of discretion between religious practices that harm or infringe on the rights of other individuals and those that do not.
I don't think the HHS mandate has to even come under freedom of conscience. By arguing under this assumption, we have given up a lot of ground. The HHS shouldn't be able to force any employer to purchase particular products for their employees.
May '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Z in MT: The 1st amendment rights all come under the rubric of freedom of ideas, which includes the ability to publicly discuss and promulgate those ideas. CJS is drawing the right line of discretion between religious practices that harm or infringe on the rights of other individuals and those that do not.
I don't think the HHS mandate has to even come under freedom of conscience. By arguing under this assumption, we have given up a lot of ground. The HHS shouldn't be able to force any employer to purchase particular products for their employees. · 2 minutes ago
I agree whole heartedly, but we give up some of that with OSHA. There are numerous examples of protective gear and tools that must be provided by employers.
Sep '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
The obvious rebuttal is "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose".
The religious freedom of the Indians was not curtailed, their freedom to take away the rights and freedoms of other people, by setting them on fire, was curtailed.
Those mandating that churches and religious hospitals pay for birth control are much closer to the Indians than the British in your scenario.
A good rule of thumb, if the exercise of your right mandates involuntary action on the part of something else, then whatever you're doing isn't a right, and what's more you're probably taking away someone else's.
Aug '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
1.) Recall that the First Amendment originally only applied to the National Government -thus the simplest reading is that it only exists to prevent the National Government from imposing some form of organization on the states or their people. The states were under no such restriction -having both invasive libel laws and censors, and established churches. Disestablishmentarianism came later. The 14th Amendment mucked that system up (not complaining, but it makes "original public meaning" a bit hard to fathom -original in 1790 or in 1868?).
2.) As a political pluralist, I see the First Amendment as a protection of civil society. No government can disband a non-governmental groups, whether expressive (speech), commercial (press), religious (religion), or political (petition) -nor may it compel or elevate one group over another by legislative fiat. The people are free to organize their lives without interference from government.
Not that anyone else agrees with me on this point.
3.) And if the National Government would stick to its limits, we'd have a lot fewer problems with deciding what does and does not count as organization. If the English weren't governing India, Napier wouldn't have needed to get involved.
Sep '12
Re: "Religious Freedom" Or Simply "Freedom"?
Specific protection for religion appears to be needed, as the Hosanna Tabor case and the HHS mandate show. Gay marriage is also a huge threat to religious freedom. Freedom of Association and other freedoms have been greatly weakened in recent years by political correctness. Thank God (literally) that religious freedom is spelled out. If it had not been, how much success would religious institutions or commecial ones like Hobby Lobby have in resisting the HHS mandate and other coming challenges?