I just came across this article: “Christianity under attack: US must do more to promote religious freedom.” It was written by Arizona Senator John McCain and Tony Perkins (president of the Family Research Council) and published/promoted by (surprise!) FoxNews.com.
As I was reading along, I got to thinking about the core meaning of “religious freedom” and turned to Google to do a little research. One of the things I found interesting was that many websites used the terminology “freedom of religion” rather than religious freedom. I wondered … is there a difference? I tend to think there is. To the point that many believe “religious freedom” actually means “Christian Religious Freedom.”
Then I came across this article: “American’s True History of Religious Tolerance: The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring — and utterly at odds with the historical record.” Although it was written in 2010, the information is timeless … and should be read and re-read by those who believe their “religious freedom” is being attacked.
I particularly resonated with this from the article:
Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ resolve that America be a secular republic. (emphasis mine)
In another part of the article, it quotes George Washington:
In closing, he [George Washington] wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
There are a couple of things that came to my mind as I read these two sections. If no religious test shall be required, why the continued outcry from certain segments of the political society related to Obama’s Muslim background? Based on this section of the Constitution, it would seem a Muslim, a Hindu, a Taoist, etc. could hold “any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Or am I missing something?
I also wondered where the good will that Washington put forth is today? From everything I’ve seen and read, anyone outside of the Christian faith is suspect and more often than not is treated with disrespect and contempt.
Another portion that stood out to me:
Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” (emphasis mine)
Can I hear an “Amen!”?
Amen. Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
“Based on this section of the Constitution, it would seem a Muslim, a Hindu, a Taoist, etc. could hold ‘any Office or public Trust under the United States.’” – The State Constitution of Texas forbids any atheist from holding State Office.
LikeLiked by 4 people
$Amen$ What we need here is freedom FROM religion as well as freedom to practice whichever one you want. Practice it privately, peacefully, and without ramming it up other people’s asses that is. BTW, not only do conservative idiots claim Obama to be a devout Muslim, they also claim him to be an atheist. Idiots.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen.
It is, though, always an interesting exercise to ask a Christian (and by this we should perhaps say, evangelical) what a “Christian nation” would actually look like. Which interpretation of the bible would rule the day? Would clerics sit on the Supreme Court? What would a Christian nation’s foreign policy look like? What would a Christian nation’s education system look like? What would a Christian nation’s science and technology policies look like? Would a Christian nation have a standing army, and if so, would it be expeditionary in nature? What would a Christian nation’s healthcare system look like? What would a Christian nation’s welfare and public safety-net systems look like? What would a Christian nation’s capital markets policies like?
Try these questions out. The answers, or lack thereof, can be interesting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The battle over what is “true” christianity. Now that would be fun. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wouldn’t it? You think Syria and Iraq are a mess, wait till you see 40,000 U.S. churches armed and fighting it out. Who do you think would be the most brutal?
LikeLike
My $’s on the Catholics.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The ones who have the least sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…and they were known as The Blue Balls: a ravenous, brutal battalion who rampaged across the land, smiting all in their path…
LikeLike
I am reminded of one of the most bloody of all wars, the Thirty Years War in Germany in the 16th century. It was in essence a religious war of Protestant and Catholics fighting each other, and both groups persecuting Anabaptists who were pacifists and thus a juicy target.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Positively! The Anabaptist, Hans Hut, holds the rather unusual distinction of being perhaps the only person in history to be executed a day after in fact dying. Now that, my friends, is how you demonstrate your hatred for someone 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You think THAT’s hatred – The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after John Wycliffe’s death, he ordered his bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lack thereof would most likely be the norm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would look like Vatican City, a very Christian state as they get. Porn will be shunned upon but watched by many. Bishops will elect the president.
The pope/ president will appoint all the officers and they will send emissaries to other nations among others. A particular brand of christianity will be declared state religion and all others being heresies will be dealt with as they have always done, violently
LikeLike
I say look to Europe for your example of the Christian State, sayfrom 600 to 1600 CE, aka, the Dark Ages –
LikeLike
Apart from the stake and rack is there anything worth noting?
LikeLike
What about education?
LikeLike
Education, the bible is all they need to know
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear. In that case, welcome to the 12th Century
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the priest is the only one who owns the bible and he teaches it in Latin which more than 3/4 of the people don’t understand
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Source: Attack on Religious Freedom — Really?? […]
LikeLike
The evidence of history is that religion, pretty much any religion, when it has the levers of state power will persecute all those deemed unorthodox. Not just unbelievers, but also believers who don’t tow the official line.
Religions only tend to be tolerant when they have no political power. The more power they have, the more intolerant they tend to become. This is what history teaches. It makes sense because it reflects human nature. If there was truly a divine being behind one of the religions then it would stand out from the others like chalk and cheese. But none do. Some people cite Buddhism as different, but events in Burma show us that Buddhists can be just as intolerant as other religions.
LikeLike
Amen, glory to be, praise Got All Muddy.
But seriously, if we became a “Christian Nation”, surely no one is asking me to believe that there’d be unity, consensus, and peace on earth. It’s like these people think that if every atheist ran out and joined a church, all of society’s problems would be over. Not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What?!!? You don’t think society’s ills would be solved if we became a “Christian Nation?” What kind of rabble-rouser are you???
Seriously, I totally agree with you. But what’s really, really scary is there are those that are doing everything in their power to do just that. *shudder*
Thanks for stopping by! Hope you’ll visit more often.
LikeLike
” What kind of rabble-rouser are you???”
The kind who’s smart enough to know that Christian’s problems wouldn’t be over if we became a nation full of Christian theists run exclusively by Christians theists. No, not even. Muslim theists would still want them all dead, and vice versa. Basically, a large-scale version of “My dad is bigger than your dad!”, except that both dads are AWOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hell, forget about the Muslim extremists, the various christian sects would be at war with each other over which version of christianity our theocracy should be based on. Evangelicals and Lutherans DO NOT like Catholics, for examples. They’d surely not want to live under Catholic, Papist rule. Creationists would want nothing to do with a theocracy that didn’t declare Genesis to 100% accurate and evolution outlawed. So, when christians cry for a “christian” theocracy, I say, which one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“forget about the Muslim extremists, the various christian sects would be at war with each”
Yes, of course….33,000+ versions of the “One Truth”, all at odds with each other. ‘Probably a bit easier to convince them that Muslims are coming to get them, than to convince them that their own cult members are coming to get them. Either way, they’d be seriously mistaken if they think “atheism” is their biggest problem.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed.
LikeLike
AWOL dads … Love it!
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person