Love thy neighbor, Matthew 22:39. Jesus was a Jew. Everyone finds their way to Him in time. These are the most frequently claimed reasons I hear in the defense of religious freedom and protection. As long as you believe in some God, you’ve got the right idea. The only religion truly unaccounted for and discredited by the theist? The one with no God, the one that believes we live, we die, that’s it. Questions of the devout to those with atheistic tendencies stray from a meek, what holds you accountable, to defining statements like, then you believe murder is good.
The generalizations of atheism that come from the, most frequently, Christian perspective are harmful to and directly violate their own desire to speak freely about religion in the public and political sphere – the sphere they assume promotes the secular, when the United States has never seen a political leader that wasn’t Christian. How can a country that proudly claims the title of a diverse melting pot, boastful of its freedoms – in particular religious ones – have such a lackluster history of non-Christians taking advantage of said freedoms? In this essay, I aim to address claims by William Cavanaugh and Evangelicals and Catholics Together with hopes of answering the question of where atheism fits under the umbrella of religious tolerance, and suggest that, if included in political discourse, religion has a place in discussion about, but not in, law.
The authors of both “In Defense of Religious Freedom” and “God Is Not Religious,” albeit unintentionally, frame their arguments among religious context. This diametrically opposes the necessary common language to appeal to audiences of all religions in public discourse, and thereby institute a truly equal definition of religious freedom. The author of “In Defense of Religious Freedom” suggests that impeding religious freedom “violates the order of creation,” which is an inherently religious phrase (PG 5). This diction already assumes the audience is spiritual, which immediately isolates and disregards his agnostic or atheist readers. If someone doesn’t believe in God’s order of creation, why would they be bothered by violating it by restricting religious freedoms? I’m sure the author didn’t intend for it to come across that way,which is to say that it is near impossible for the theist to separate their opinions from their faith–which is precisely why I don’t find that to be necessary or beneficial for any party. In “God Is Not Religious”, Cavanaugh also assumes the reader is faithful to some higher being. Although there is a prevalent and loud minority, he suggests that the religious public triumphs those without a religion: making religion private is comfortable for the atheist, but the atheists comfort shouldn’t be a priority in Cavanaugh’s (and seemingly the ideal theist’s) world. If we are so focused on maximizing the validity of religion in the public sphere, we inherently minimize the validity of not only the atheist’s opinions, which Cavanaugh seems to generally overlook with the fact that “90 percent of people still say they believe in some sort of supreme beings,” but also those that are religious who don’t practice “loudly” (PG 106). Does being in the minority make one’s beliefs invalid? What qualifies one as being “religious enough?” What is too little, the churchgoer that attends only every major holiday, and what is too much, bordering on the edge of religious psychosis and cultish tendencies? Cavanaugh seems to interpret those that don’t go to church and find religion to be “neither thought nor action, but feeling and intuition” to be somewhat invalid and disrespectful to the God he knows (PG 102). This again, poses a problem for atheists and theists alike, as every religion, even under the same branch, finds the other religions to be invalid and in some instances, not worthy of protection under the law. That’s not what Cavanaugh is saying, but where is the line drawn: we start with shame and disrespect towards “lukewarm” practicers, which eventually can lead to denial of protection under the guise of religious freedom (which is only for those that the people in power determine to be “properly” religious). Such a strict definition of what is or isn’t religious is unnecessary and inherently harmful to the protection of religious freedom, as it restricts the religious majority and especially the nonreligious minority of the United States. What is necessary, though, is to orient a discussion involving theological premises on a basis everyone can understand and agree with:this includes not only neutral diction, but also pointing to opinions rather than scriptures and facts when having a discussion of personal opinions (which politics usually is).
In excluding religion from legislature, I mean that divinity is not verbalized in law: opinions can be rooted in religious convictions, as ultimately, I believe most religious convictions aren’t religious, but rather moral– the atheist so frequently agrees with religious ideologies once broken down to principles rather than scripture based arguments. Present our opinions as our opinions rather than God’s, and the barrier we have built dividing ourselves is broken down.Ignoring the fact that this was also a part of an Evangelical declaration, the statement itself that “[religious freedom] requires advocacy before governments on behalf of Christians and people of other faiths who are persecuted” from the author of “In Defense of Religious Freedom” suggests an extension of such a claim to all religions, but I am tempted to believe the author doesn’t consider atheists to be one of the more persecuted parties, and since we don’t live in a defined Christian state, then we automatically live in an atheist state (PG 6). The lack of the latter does not make the former. I agree with the author of “In Defense Of Religious Freedom” that “religiously informed moral argument (in the public square) does not establish religion or impose sectarian values on a pluralistic society,” but the same goes for the latter (PG 8). Because we don’t quote John and Romans in our congressional acts does not mean we persecute those that wish for such a form of government. Being a secular state that doesn’t enact theologically-grounded laws doesn’t discredit religion or trivialize it in any way, shape, or form, though many theists feel as such – especially these two authors. Cavanaugh addresses this concern of trivialization directly, describing how “Thomas Jefferson ‘held that 'operations of the mind' are not subject to legal coercion, but that 'acts of the body' are’” (PG 106). Cavanaugh goes on to deliberate the idea that the state’s governance of bodies discredits religion’s governance of the mind. He essentially twists Thomas Jefferson’s respectful belief – that you legitimately cannot change what someone believes in and practices in private – and instead concludes that Jefferson disregards religion’s claim on the soul and place in life overall, as nothing you do and believe matters “as long as the rest of the body is prepared to let the state pick its pockets and break its legs” (PG 106). The only thing Thomas Jefferson attempted to display in that statement was civility to the devout while properly acknowledging that if in law,biblically-based reasoning for punishments can't punish the non-religious crime committers, as its premises mean nothing to them. This seemingly mundane misinterpretation of Jefferson’s quote is just a minute example of a larger problem in the 20th century regarding context and interpretation, especially in religious and biblical contexts. Not including scripture in law doesn’t depreciate it or devalue God’s ultimate authority (to those that believe in it) – it just ensures less of these inevitable misinterpretations on larger scales and a fair playing field for all religions in legal circumstances (that many other countries don’t have). For instance, the author of “In Defense Of Religious Freedom” describes a history of Christians being persecuted for their religion in other nations, claiming the reasons for these new colonies founded in America being “in the conviction that the bloody persecution of men for their religious convictions was ‘contrary to Scripture’” (PG 6). His focus on Christian persecution may be very well true in the Middle East, as many of those country’s governments are religiously based (thereby further emphasizing the need for a secular government to ensure fair treatment to all, with nothing being defended under religious pretenses in legislature), but for the sake of my argument, I will focus on the US. Studies indicate that Muslims and atheists experience religious discrimination, especially in America, far more often than Christians. Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, and despite a decline in its numbers, it is still the dominant religion. Most every well known figure, especially in politics, has been Christian, and every president has been Christian – there has not been a well known candidate to run on an atheist platform, which has implications of its own. In modern day America, even considering the past century, Christian’s are arguably the least marginalized and prejudiced group, especially in the political sphere. The fact that so many other countries aren’t secular and have nationally established religions, like Saudi Arabia’s adherence to Islamic principles in legal settings, that do discriminate against other, western religions – especially Christianity and atheism – proves our fundamental need for a government that doesn’t verbalize religious sources in the legislature and should be backed by all religions alike.
Ultimately, in such a polarized world with little room for common ground, the ability to still have a secular, somewhat objective government is a rarity – whether we recognize it or not. Religious freedom is not as common as we’d like to think, and it’s a feat we fought hard for that we are willing to eradicate in the name of “democracy” and for the sake of “agreement,” so we can make “progress” in moments like government shutdowns – progress that would only move us backwards. Sure, it would be infinitely easier if we didn’t have to debate the validity of the atheist’s perspective versus the Christian’s, but that’s what a democratic state is about: it’s about having the space to debate such things and to not change your mind in the end,continuing to fight for what you believe in without faltering. If we do take these freedoms for granted and lose sight of our roots and hard-won separation from our religiously authoritative origins, America will have forfeited its foundational purpose. We must reaffirm our core values going forward by truly including all religions, including atheism, under the principle of religious tolerance and encouraging religion in political discourse, but not legislature.
No comments:
Post a Comment