Religious Freedom

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 First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; a pretty remarkable statement. It would be hard to craft a more precise foundation for a free society. Though there is much to contemplate in this day of speech being equal to money, a press that is owned by a few multi-national corporations, or those peaceably assembling for a redress of grievances being assaulted by police...this evening's muse is on the freedom of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This may be the most perfectly balanced statement any group of thinking people has ever penned. How could it be better? Congress is completely bared from the arena of religious practices. In a world that has suffered a long history of religious extremists battling each other and oppressing others, completely isolating religion from the power structure of the State is nothing short of a stroke of genius. Every single religious person in the US should celebrate such insight.  Since no religion is given access to the power structure of the state, every religious practitioner is protected from being coerced or abused by every other religious practitioner. Each is free to practice the religion of his or her choice. Each is free to change religious perceptions without fear and are not bound to the religion of their government, parents, society, or their own youth. This unabridged freedom to pursue the truth as each person finds it unfolding in their own life is the very essence of a free society.

If your religion prohibits you from ingesting meat on Friday you can't be forced to eat meat on Friday...by anyone. If, on the other hand, my religion sees nothing wrong with eating meat on Friday, no one (including you) can force me to abstain. So far, so good.

But what if you run a deli? Should you be forced to sell me meat on Friday, and if you are is that an assault on your religious freedom? Maybe "ingesting" meat, according to your denomination's interpretation, includes touching, or even smelling, any kind of dead flesh? Clearly insisting that you handle meat on Friday could be seen as prohibiting you from the free exercise of your religion.

And does that mean that you can prohibit an employee from having a ham sandwich for lunch in order for you to adhere to the dictates of your religious conscious?

I don't think so. Meeting the obligations of religion is the most personal of responsibilities. It is not a licence to infringe on the lives of others. If you are our fictitious deli owner you can take Friday off and let your employee handle the counter. (Who would also be able to eat a ham sandwich for lunch.) It is your religion. It is your responsibility to live with your religion and yours only. If it costs you, well, it costs you, not me, not your employee...you.

Which is as it should be.

Religious dictates that boarder on the extreme will have a corresponding impact on the individual practitioner, but in a free society it can't be allowed to go any further than the individual. Our "No ingesting meat on Friday," is an example. Not eating meat is a rather clear and easy dictate. No touching gets a little more difficult for the devotee but not insurmountable. Not allowing a single molecule of meat to enter the body in any way becomes an extreme interpretation (though some sect somewhere will undoubtedly go with it). Now the followers are gathering in a sterile room and breathing carefully filtered air for the duration of Friday.

This is still pretty easy stuff so far as a free society goes. You do what you have to do to meet the dictates of your religious precepts - right up until they impact someone else.

And that is where it gets a touch more difficult. For, unfortunately for the world, most religions have commands in them that require followers to spread their religious dictates with little regard to individual liberty. In other words your religion dictates that, not only are you prohibited from eating meat on Friday, you are prohibited from allowing anyone to eat meat on Friday. (Most religions, at their core, are incompatible with any kind of democratic society - something we all conveniently ignore.)

And so the conflict joined at the very first religious schism continues to this very day.

A conflict that the First Amendment was designed to quell. Without some backing by the power of the State, you do not have the power to prohibit me from eating meat on Friday. I can simply ignore you and have a ham sandwich If you grab my arm the cops will haul you away. If there is not a cop around I can defend myself with as much force as I need, call the cops, and have them haul you away at a later time. If I have the inclination and the cash I can higher some mad-dog lawyer to sue you in civil court and put a serious hurting on your bank account, maybe end up owning your deli. The First Amendment will not protect you from being charged with assault.

But what if you own the only deli in town and on Friday you lock up all the meat? No assault, no violence; in fact the law works the other way now. If I break into you store to get at the ham, or hold a gun to your head and demand my Friday sandwich, the courts and the lawyers are your side. You have imposed your religious dictates on me without running afoul of the letter of the First Amendment. But I submit that you have run afoul of the spirit, the intent, of the First Amendment.

The moment religious freedom moves beyond the individual and touches someone else, a bit of liberty is lost. It could be a minor little bit, like losing my ham sandwich on Friday. It could be the most major loss, my life to your suicide bombing. The vast majority of the time is it somewhere in the middle, between the ham sandwich and murder. In every case another thing lost is the intent of the First Amendment - that of creating a free society.

The moment someone is prevented from an individual expression of their religion, a bit of liberty is lost as well. A person wants to wear a hood, kneel head toward Mecca 5 times a day, or grow a beard down to their waist? On what basis should they be restrained from performing these personal acts of conscious? That I am offended by a veil or a public prayer or a scraggly beard should be completely beside the point. Indeed, why should I be offended at all? Each is living his or her life in accordance with a take on the world that is different than is mine, so? Each time an individual is prevented from practicing their religion, from living their life freely in the light of the truth as they see it to be, a little bit of a free society is lost as well.

All of us should be committed to protecting every individual's liberty, should they share our religion or no. Ultimately that is the only way that liberty is preserved for anyone. It is the only way religious freedom survives.

Anyone who attempts to use the First Amendment to force a religious practice on anyone else is, ultimately, an enemy of liberty and of a free society. That they are not, necessarily, and enemy of religion would be one of the many reasons I am not religious. I have little use for a god who needs to impose itself on me. I have no use for a god that needs me to impose itself on you.

Those who hold the belief that they are called to impose god's will on others live in perpetual defiance of the First Amendment. Of course they don't care, but it does make it a little easier for the rest of us to figure out who be the bad guys.