In recent years we have had a good deal of confusion in the USA about religion. On the whole, we are a deeply religious people – at least, we have been – so it is perhaps natural that some confusion should arise when what the Bible calls “winds of doctrine” sweep across our country and the world. I can’t clear up all points of confusion in this short piece, of course, but some attempt is warranted. In an earlier article we tackled confusion about Islam.1 This time we’ll have a go at the larger issues of religious freedom and tolerance.
Americans pride themselves on both of these, and we take them very seriously. Protections for individually held religious convictions and allowance for their free exercise are not just polite American customs. They are important principles of self-governance written directly into our Constitution. Because religion is a sensitive topic, confusion is bound to arise, from time to time, over what those protections and guarantees mean. Now seems to be one of those times. Amendment I of our seminal governing document states:
“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.”
The amendment’s very simple and direct wording obviously places no restrictions on the people – only restrictions on Congress’s power to pass laws governing religious belief or practice. Over the years the Supreme Court has heard many cases dealing with what Congress can or cannot do on this topic. During one of them a Supreme Court Justice famously thundered: “How do you read those words, sir? I read them as NO LAW!” You don’t need to be a Constitutional lawyer to see that the prohibition is absolute.
In our current era it has become fashionable to claim that the amendment’s free-exercise protections apply only to “organized” religious bodies – e.g., churches, synagogues or mosques. But this qualification is plainly absent from the text. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the amendment protects free exercise of religion at the individual level, not merely at the organizational level.
Surely not by coincidence, the amendment goes on to protect freedom of “speech” in both oral and written form – thereby underscoring the strong link between free exercise of religion and free speech. Accordingly, any American is free to proclaim that his is the only true religion, while others are false. As the inclination strikes us, we may preach that Presbyterians (or Methodists or Buddhists or Holy Rollers) are rascals, or that their doctrine is faulty, or that Baptist ministers live too high on the hog. Or some may proclaim (or write) that certain political leaders are “fallen Catholics” or “apostate Jews” because of policies they advocate.
Saying these things might be socially gauche, but such speakers (or writers) cannot be sanctioned or stopped by force of law. They can’t be prevented from saying that anyone who doesn’t believe their way is a miserable sinner. The modern construct of “hate speech” – often invoked to hammer persons making nasty comments about some religion – is not found in the Constitution. Legally, there is no such thing. Any law, at any level of governance, that attempts to restrict such speech is fundamentally un-Constitutional. It cannot be enforced. Persons jailed or fined for religious speech or practice can seek legal redress, and they will prevail. This freedom essentially defines American uniqueness. Very few other nations enjoy it.
Part of our confusion about religious freedom stems from attempts to shift the First Amendment’s protection of religion away from limiting what government can do and toward an invented requirement that individuals must accept any (and all) religions. As secular-minded people have frequently reminded us over our Republic’s history, however, this is not the amendment’s meaning. Every individual is perfectly free to reject any – indeed, all – religion, according to his conscience. Others may call us naughty – wicked, even – for not accepting certain religious beliefs, but we are not obliged to do so. Mandatory acceptance of any faith is not part of our Constitutional deal. I’m a Christian, but I know that real faith cannot be coerced. It is impossible within our national culture.
Dr. Ben Carson – a 2016 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and currently Mr. Trump’s Secretary for Housing and Urban Development – was another political figure who got ensnared in the web of misconstruction now surrounding the First Amendment. When coaxed by liberal media interviewer F. Chuck Todd into answering a hypothetical question about whether he would endorse a Muslim for the presidency, Dr. Carson answered “no” – saying that Sharia Law, which devout Muslims support, conflicts with the U. S. Constitution in several important areas. As a Muslim presidential candidate was nowhere in sight, the fatuous question had no particular relevance. Its entire purpose was obviously to paint Dr. Carson as unfit to hold high office on grounds of religious bigotry.
Dr. Carson’s unequivocal answer sent some politicos to the fainting couch. But others, on both sides of the aisle, wheeled up the heavy Constitutional artillery to blast the conservative and upright doctor. Most fired the First Amendment at him, and many cited the concluding passage of Article VI of the Constitution – i.e., “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” – in their declaration of war on the soft-spoken neurosurgeon.
Media pundits and pols spent weeks piously pounding Ben Carson for his unspeakable “bigotry.” (Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer called his remarks about Muslims “outrageous.”) Ironically, many of Dr. Carson’s accusers were the same people who have been shouting from the housetops that Evangelical Christians and Catholics are “unfit” for high office because they refuse to accept abortion and same-sex marriage. I can’t recall any mention of the Constitution when all that was going on. Evidently, some religions can be criticized, but others can’t be. (Who knew?)
Dr. Carson might have added that he probably would not endorse a Christian Scientist for the presidency because part of that religion’s doctrine forbids medical treatment. One also imagines that he wouldn’t accept: a devotee of religious snake-handling; or a neo-Aztec advocate of human sacrifice; or a “naturalist” who believes we should all worship Gaia (a.k.a. Mother Earth), wear animal-skins, live in dirt-floored huts, and cook over fires of dried buffalo poop.
Religious Snake-handlers
F. Chuck didn’t ask the doctor about any of these because even he probably recognizes that our devotion to religious “tolerance” has limitations. The Constitution prohibits Congress from passing laws about religious beliefs or practices, but this doesn’t mean that We The People must accept every religious belief held by candidates – real or imagined – running for political office.
Individuals may exercise their own brand of common sense and good judgment in these matters, even if laws can’t be made to restrict or ban them. And we are not bigots for pointing out how various religions align (or not!) with the Judeo-Christian ethics expressed in our Constitution and system of law. Silencing criticism is tyranny’s first objective. As Ronald Reagan said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Vice-president Mike Pence – who makes no secret of his Evangelical Christianity – also ran afoul of the media’s “religion cops” when he mentioned that he talks to God and listens for His voice. The noted theologian Dr. Joy Behar took exception to Mr. Pence’s remarks, suggesting that he might suffers from a mental illness shared by people who claim to “hear voices.” But Dr. Behar did not find common ground with the religious community, which erupted with outrage to her statement. Undoubtedly prompted by her ABC bosses, she eventually issued a personal apology to the vice-president for her insensitive remarks. (Obviously she meant no disrespect.) So much for “tolerance and acceptance.”
Mike Pence
*********
- See “Religious Confusion: What is Islam Really All About?” – http://thebullelephant.com/religious-confusion-what-is-islam-really-all-about/
15 comments
Which religion(s)and free exercise of it did the Founders refer to when they penned the First Amendment? Church of England (Episcopal), Roman Catholicism, Baptist, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism? I haven’t studied the issue but I’d suspect they were mostly referring to Christian denominations. Anyone have research on it?
“And we are not bigots for pointing out how various religions align (or not!) with the Judeo-Christian ethics expressed in our Constitution and system of law. Silencing criticism is tyranny’s first objective. As Ronald Reagan said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.””
Just because your opinion is protected by the Constitution does not mean it can’t be deemed to be bigotry. Societal pressures to silence you and sideline your bigoted opinions are also fully Constitutional. As you stated, the Constitution only protects you from government action to silence you (and even then not absolutely).
As long as you do it peaceably and without illegal harassment you are protected. Once you go over that line, you are acting criminally.
I read nothing in that article regarding actions of the so-called “religion cops” that could even remotely be considered “illegal harassment”. So if this article is a plea for relief from being publically called out as a bigot when one tries to suggest that our country was built for those who espouse “Judeo-Christian ethics” and that other religious beliefs are somehow lesser or counter to that ethos, then it was an abject failure.
You’re making the bigot slur worthless by misuse and overuse.
Just using the term the author chose – seems like he is concerned about the characterization.
Nah, you’ve joined in on the bigot throwing on TBE.
Well, if the shoe fits, throw it!
Or the sabot as is intended.
Using general standards set forth in The Bible, and the standard dictionary definition of the word religious, there is absolutely no way that people in the USA could as a society now be considered a “deeply religious people”. And, the bigotry in this country has risen to such a level in government and society, that only Catholics and Jews are now allowed on SCOTUS. These 6 Catholics and 3 Jews are the ones who actually now run this country and interpret the constitution, as Congress now refuses to do its job under either party.
Calling society in this country “deeply religious” is on par with calling inside the beltway “righteous”. Where do you come up with this backwards reality?
How do they do that? Only allow Jews and Catholics on the Supreme Court and to run the country? I’m on tenterhooks.
Just look at who controls the media and Wall St.. SCOTUS runs the country by default, as congress is lazy and dysfunctional.
The facts and numbers do not lie. Tonight on cable news, first we had Catholic Erin Burnett interviewing the Catholic Larry Saboto on CNN. Then we had Anderson Cooper (refusing to declare religion, Catholic mother) after Burnette, interviewing the Catholic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. We then had the CNN Catholic anchor Chris Cuomo on at 9 doing his election show coverage. Meanwhile we had Chris Hayes (Catholic raised, refuses to declare) all in on the election. An then on Fox we had the Catholic Shaun Hannity for an hour, followed by the Catholic Laura Ingram hour. Missing from Fox these days is Catholic Bill O’Reilly.
In the White House tomorrow morning, Trump will leave Catholic Ivanka and Catholic Son. He will go to his office to meet with his Catholic Chief of Staff John Kelly. Catholic Kelly Ann Conway will be singing Trump on the various networks about Ohio. Catholic John Fredericks will be getting the talking points for his show from the White House.
Perhaps Catholic Secretary of Defense Mathis or Catholic WH. Budget director Mulvaney will drop in? Or possibly Catholic Larry Kudlow will pop in about trade. Or maybe Catholic Corey Lewandowski will get a call. Or maybe former Catholic WH communication man Scaramucci will continue to do Trump damage control. Possibly former Catholic press secretary Shaun Spicer pops up selling his new book.
When you wake up in the morning, you can watch Catholic Steve Doocy or Catholic Brian Kilmeade on Fox, or Catholic Mika Brezinski and her Catholic educated domestic partner, Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC. Or, turn to CNN, there you can watch Catholic Alisyn Camerota, who until recently was paired with Catholic Chris Cuomo until he got his own show.
And, you wonder why we have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews and 0 evangelicals or atheists on SCOTUS? Coincidence? I think not. Should the GOP now be called the Catholic Party?
You are so right on so many of your points above but I don’t think that correlation equates to causality.
The fact that western civilization is built on the Judeo -Christian ethos sort of means if you do rattle the box, a number of Jews and Christians will fall out, AND the Catholic Church DID get in on the ground floor.
All the more reason to get involved in the party and to stop the GOP from tilting further toward Rome and Jerusalem.
The unit chairs will no doubt appreciate my outreach here.
It gets even better, see this link,
https://m.facebook.com/notes/wretched/fox-news-not-so-fair-and-balanced-in-the-religion-department/10151400693600056/
CORRECTION, above should be Trump’s Catholic wife Melania and son, not daughter Ivanca and son. I get their names mixed up, please accept my complete apologies. I believe Ivanca has actually converted to Judaism.