Attack on Religious Freedom — Really??

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!”?

SCOTUS, Tony Perkins, and Gay Marriage

Referring readers to yet another article that rankles my bones …

Quote by Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council:

“The court is not going to settle this issue. In fact, I think it does a disservice to both sides if the court weighs in on public policy like this,” said Perkins on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “The courts are designed to interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws, not create public policy. When they do that, they create division and they erect barriers to reaching consensus on public policy like this.”

He’s talking about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the gay marriage issue.

I can’t help but wonder if SCOTUS was considering the establishment of prayer and bible reading in public schools if Perkins would consider it a “disservice” for them to weigh in on “public policy.”

Tony Perkins and “Lack of Tolerance”

According to this article, Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council, feels that when gay people post photos of gay people on Facebook so Christians can see them, they (Christians) are being persecuted.

Whaaat?

Perkins goes on to say (in response to a person who called into his Washington Watch radio show):

This is being shoved into people’s faces, and if, like you, they say, I don’t want this on my Facebook page, I don’t want this, I don’t want to see this, look, do whatever you want to do but don’t involve me in that – that’s not good enough, there’s this effort of forced acceptance and affirmation, and we just can’t do that. (emphasis mine)

Is this calling the kettle black … or is this calling the kettle black?

Isn’t it interesting that when it’s something “The Christians” don’t like to see, it’s “forced acceptance and affirmation.” Yet putting Christian signs, symbols, displays, slogans, etc. in public places … or starting public meetings with a Christian prayer … this isn’t forced acceptance and affirmation (based on Perkins’ definition)?

But the topper was when Perkins told the caller that he was witnessing first-hand the “lack of tolerance” from gay people.

Oh My Thor!

Apparently, the distraught Christian didn’t know how to simply click the “unfollow” button.

P.S. For the full response by Perkins, listen to the audio (if you’ve got the stomach for it).