Freedom of Religion on the Eve of Christmas Eve
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published December 23, 2006, 5:16 pm in News, Ethics, Morality, & Justice.
Happy holidays to all of the political junkies out there. It is the best of times, it is the worst of times; it is the time of recess, it is the time of lame ducks; the time of joyousness, the time of budget reconciliation; the time of presidential election interest, the time for thanking God that Dick Cheney won'it run in 2008; the time to think about the November after next, the time to complain about the past one. In short, the present period is so much like every other period that we will think about these politics from the superlative point of view.
Speaking of the Christmas season, there are some interesting developments in the realm of Congressional installation. It seems that some new Congressperson wants to use the Koran during his oath of office. Not the Bible, of course, for it's not his holy book. It's not that they take their oath on the book, though. The holy book is only used during a private ceremony afterwards. And it's not the first time people have used books other than the Bible. One member did it with the Catholic Bible, another did it with the Mormon Bible, and another has actually done it with the Koran. But now it's different.
With the X Congressman from X state who sent out the letter to his constituents saying that it's dangerous to elect Muslim members of Congress, the climate has definitely changed. Things are just not the same for the last five years, meaning since 9/11.
So we need to have a brief discussion on freedom of religion. It seems obvious that anyone can worship whomever or whatever they want in this country. But it's not quite that obvious. It seems pretty clear to me that the founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights had one thing in mind: Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of religion. But they meant Christian religion. They meant that it didn't matter if one were Methodist, Baptist, or, God forbid, Catholic. Heck, one could even be a deist. They didn't care. But religions other than Christian weren't really even on the radar. Sure the Native Americans were here, but they were so marginalized that they hardly counted. But no matter what version of Christianity one was, it was okay in this new country. All Christianity would be tolerated, even those crazy Huguenots.
But things are different now. Even if the Constitution didn't take atheists or Muslims into account, it makes sense that we now have to do that. Islam has over a billion people worshipping Allah, and a heck of a lot of them live in the U.S. It makes sense that we would have Muslim Congresspeople, then. If they represent the population, than they should represent their religion, too, right? But what allows someone to think that our country should not have Muslim Congressmembers? Is this a kind of bias verging on racism or just fear-mongering? I'm not sure, but it bothers me. On the one hand, we not only have freedom of religion but we also have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Remember after the Kramer scandal a month ago when Jesse Jackson said that using the "n-word" should be considered prosecutable hate speech? Well, it's clear that our country respects someone's right to use that word, no matter how reprehensible it is. As that famous enlightenment thinker once said: I don't respect what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it. That doesn't go for everything, for we have established guidelines that restrict speech that is dangerous. But if it isn't dangerous, it's all fair game.
The same goes for religion. All religions are the same in the eyes of the government.
But that doesn't mean my fellow American can't be a racist fear-mongering pig if he or she wants to be (notice that I use the inclusive "he or she" because I frankly don't want to be misogynistic). And I then have the right to call those people racist fear-mongering pigs. That's our mutual right. But it doesn't make it right in a moral sense. I respect Michael Richards's right to say whatever he wants to, and I will fight for him to have that right, but I frankly think anyone who says that has acted like a (insert expletive here). And I have the right to think that.
But isn't our country still founded on Christianity? Yeah, it was, but even strict constructionism thinks that we have to interpret the Constitution based on what it says as well as what it meant. And almost every expert agrees that freedom of religion means all religion, not just Christian versions. So we have to adapt as our country changes. It doesn't mean that we have to pander to every person's whim, but we also have the right to vote for the candidate that represents our wishes. For example, we can vote for a Muslim candidate if we want to. We can also vote for a candidate who wants prayer in school if we want to. But our government has to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, too. If the majority of our population wants nationalized school prayer, it is up to our government to disallow it.
In the same stroke, even if the majority of our government doesn't want Islamic tolerance, it is up to our government and our courts to ensure the rights of all Muslims. It doesn't change anything the Christians or atheists believe to allow a Muslim to take the oath of office. It doesn't change anything about the stature of our government, either. All it does is mean that we're inclusive, not exclusive, and that we still respect freedom of religion, along with those other two specters--freedom of the press and freedom of speech. And dang it, I have the right to say that and print it.
My boss, of course, has the right to not like what I write and fire me. But we won't go into that right now.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 214 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment