Freedom from Religion

{I touched on this topic in my last article, and this is as good a time as any to build on that discussion.}

There has been much fuss over the years, and with growing traction among public officials, by those who believe they have a "right" to be protected from religion in virtually any and every way. If you read and understand my views on rights, then you may already see where I stand on this one. I believe you have a right to worship or not worship as you see fit. That is about the limit of it.

I am concerned with all natural rights, not just those few captured in the US Constitution. Still, I am glad that the framers added the "anti-establishment" clause. This clause was an awkward way of saying what I put plainly above: you have a right to worship or not. In the Bill of Rights, many of our rights are stated as limits on government. As a result, the wording of the first amendment is a distraction from the underlying rights it protects. We should focus on our individual right to worship as we see fit. Instead activists focus on trivial and normal interactions between governing bodies and long standing religious traditions. Until our government uses force to prevent or compel the public to worship, our freedom of religion remains intact. As with the right to bear arms, it would have been clearer to state the rights plainly and simply rather than expressing them as limits on government.

However, the framers took this approach with good reason. They had just won our freedom from rulers who established a state run religion. It was not possible to hold certain public offices and civil service positions if you were not a member of the Church of England. We are not talking about a child in a public school who wishes Merry Christmas to other students. We are not talking about hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in a lobby. We are not talking about the word "God" on our currency. The first amendment prohibits state run churches, because it is natural for such churches to take away our voice in government. This would be unacceptable whether on a local or national level.

The founders naturally focused on limiting government rather than on outlining our rights. Yet that’s exactly where they went wrong and bollixed the whole thing. Over the last few decades the idea of anti-establishment has mutated. Perversely, many now believe it is their right to be free from religion, and government must protect them from religion, no matter what its form and no matter what its origin. This overzealous "separation of church and state" crowd claims that both public and private individuals cause them great harm with simple gestures like wishing them a Merry Christmas (of course I rarely hear complaints about wishes for a Happy Hanukkah or Kwanzaa – but that is another story).

And yet, I understand why the freedom from religion faction reacts so strongly. I place the blame on equally zealous, often fundamental, religious groups, and not because of any connection with government, per se. It is because these churches create enemies within their own ranks, who turn sour on the entire idea of religion. The emotional pain, guilt and destruction of self-esteem inflicted by insensitive religious groups is coming back upon them. Using the deadly force of government is a way for the disenfranchised to express their anger and resentment towards organized religion. For them it is not about protecting the integrity of our country; it is about persecuting churches in retaliation for the pain they feel.

Does it trouble me that wishing "Merry Christmas" might tear at someone’s unhealed emotional scars? Certainly it does, but I did not create those wounds, and there is nothing malicious in my spreading the joy of the season. I won’t be so crass as to tell these injured souls to get over it; I do understand their pain. I have had my share of unpleasant experiences with religion, both from a young age and again, more recently than that. Even so-called "progressive" churches have managed to foster feelings of betrayal and resentment in me. Nevertheless, I can’t imagine telling someone she must not express her religious freedom within view and earshot of me. The same goes for expecting civil servants and public officials to suddenly neuter themselves spiritually as they perform their duties. One should not have to yield her natural right to worship in order to serve the rest of society.

This may sound crazy – I am not making this up – there are those that expect all public officials to behave as atheists and to conceal all spiritual beliefs and religious affiliations in order to hold their positions. Limiting participation in government to apparent atheists is no better than if religious extremists were to hold all public offices. It requires that individuals disavow their own religious preference and instead present themselves as atheists. That is no different than what the British did leading up to the American Revolutionary War. British citizens had to publicly disavow their own religion and present themselves as members of the Church of England.

I realize that this argument holds no water for some atheists, especially the sci-theists discussed in my last article. They think everyone is better off without religion. To those folks, religion is idiotic, and asking someone to disavow all religion is just being sensible. However, it is still an imposition of one group’s religious perspective on others, and it is wrong all the same. I also realize there are minority religions in the United States that believe religious neutering of public places will "level the playing field." That nonsense will end abruptly the moment some civil servant or public official is told she cannot publicly celebrate Hanukkah or wish anyone a Happy Kwanzaa or bring a copy of the Koran to work.

The anti-religion bunch is attempting to cast their right to freedom from religion in the same light as the right to life. With our natural right to life comes an obligation to protect our lives by not taking unnecessary risks. Certainly, we ask governments to aid in protecting our lives from aggressors, but the primary obligation is ours. If we behave in a devil-may-care fashion, it is no one’s, not even government’s responsibility to save us from ourselves. When it comes to religion, I never heard of anyone who was denied the right to his own beliefs because a clerk at city hall wished him a Merry Christmas or because a copy of the Ten Commandments was hanging in the lobby.

Any comparisons between government protecting our lives and protecting us from public expressions of faith is ludicrous. Anyone who is so easily harmed by exposure to Christmas displays or the Ten Commandments is doomed to a life of "victimhood," and will die a thousand deaths before the end comes. The only way to adequately protect such delicate individuals is to keep them safely locked away as wards of the state. To me, that is preferable to making the rest of society as antiseptic and spiritually void as a state hospital.

I know that sounds harsh. And no, I do not advocate that we actually lock anyone up. Yet, except for the sci-theists and minority faiths, my personal experience is that much of the anti-church faction consists of tortured souls with painful religious experiences, who are more in need of emotional healing than in need of government protection. Perhaps my bad religious experiences were mild by comparison. Perhaps, I am blessed with greater emotional resilience. Perhaps I have achieved greater closure with my religious past. Or perhaps I simply believe it is immoral to punish all religion for the wrongs of a few churches.

That being said, I send to all of you my love and best wishes for emotional and spiritual contentment during this most appropriate time of year.