What is the Christian justification for uninhibited freedom of religion?

[Freodin]

For sure I see the problem.

But, as this problem applies to ANY constitutional formulation for the protection of liberty, its not really a valid objection to freedom of religion specifically.

I cannot agree with that. Many of the rights granted by constitutions are more or less objective.

For example: German Grundgesetz, Article 2,2: "Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. Personal liberty is inviolable. These rights can only be interfered with based on a law." (My translation)
It is objectivly demonstrable when someones life, integrity or liberty is interfered with.
But when I claim "I believe that, this is my religious or consciential conviction"... on what basis can anyone declare: "No, it is not."

And I don't object to freedom of religion, at all. I am only questioning what kind of conclusion should be drawn from this freedom.

The only solution I see is that, ultimately, real people in the world have to keep alive these values and reflect them in their choice of representatives. I think thats the way of the world basically. Governance follows society.

As long as there are real people whose personal values are based on denying these rights to others, there will be this conflict.
I think thats the way of the world basically: even high ideals need to be enforced in some way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, I totally agree.

But...there has to be some kind of criteria codified into law for what qualifies as a religion. I mean it would be cool for me to declare my company a religion. I dont break any existing secular laws. I'd love to avoid the taxes.

I'ld go further then that....
In my view, there would be no need for ANY such criteria. Because in the society that I'ld draft, there would be NO tax cuts or financial benefits of any kind with taxpayer's money. It's that simple.

If such organizations want and need a budget for anything - they can go and beg their members directly to donate.

Why would I, an atheist, have to pay for the salary of priests, for the building of mosques, for the financining of sunday bible school,... ?

It makes no sense at all.

At best, I'ld go for a system like they have in Germany. Or was it Sweden? Don't remember.
Anyway, in that country, you get to check boxes on your tax forms of the recognised religions. If you do, your taxes will contribute to those subsidies. If don't, they won't.

I predict that organized religions' budgets would dry up rather quickly. But I'ld be fine with that. They can have their religion - I have absolutely no problem with that. But don't expect ME to pay for it.

(I do think scientology might cross the line with the way they use embarrassing testimony gathered from "auditing" sessions to essentially blackmail people into continuing participation, i.e. handing over $$$.)

Ow yes. Scientology is just a global pyramid scheme wich indeed makes heavy use of good ol' blackmail and people's gullibility.

 

[Dave-W]

Quite a few American Christians have a very poor understanding of the separation of church and state. Some will declare there is no such thing. With luck, they'll show up here.

The "separation of church and state" concept is not from the Constitution; rather it is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson explaining why as Prez he did not declare days of fasting and prayer as Washington had done.

The "separation" and the non-establishment clause were not intended to make a society free from religion; rather, they were to keep the government out of the way of organized religion doing their job.

 

[Dave-W]

There really is no other way. Or else any practice or organization can claim protection as "religion".

Does anyone remember that the Catholic church could still have wine at communion during prohibition, or Timothy Leary making the "American Mind Expansionist Church" to let members legally take LSD during the late 1960s and early 70s?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The "separation of church and state" concept is not from the Constitution; rather it is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson explaining why as Prez he did not declare days of fasting and prayer as Washington had done.

Wrong. The words "wall of separation of church and state" appear in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists [nor is it about declaring fasting and prayer] but the concept of separation of church and state is indeed from the Constitution, as the letter itself explains.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

[Dave-W]

That was how Jefferson applied that language. And as one of the authors of the document it was perhaps what he meant in the first place. But that is NOT how the actual text is worded. And the actual wording is what we must go by.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm

 

[essentialsaltes]

That was how Jefferson applied that language. And as one of the authors of the document it was perhaps what he meant in the first place. But that is NOT how the actual text is worded. And the actual wording is what we must go by.

The actual words require interpretation, and this is the job of the judiciary. The actual text does not include the word 'separation', but their meaning encompasses the concept of separation. Or as your link has it, we use 'separation' as shorthand for what the Constitution means by the establishment clause.

Relying on 'the actual text' is hopeless. What are 'arms' in the Second Amendment? The limbs that stick out of your shoulders? Blunderbusses? Halberds? Shuriken? Explosives? Nukes? The meaning of the actual text does not inhere in the bare words.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I was raised Roman Catholic, had a Jesuit education, studied Philosophy and Religion as an undergraduate and had every intention of becoming a Jesuit priest. I am no longer Roman Catholic or Christian, but I am an active believer in another faith. I think that it's important to preface this question with that. If you have any questions about me in this context, message me, because I don't want this thread to go off topic.


Most American Christians of all denominations, from conservative Southern Baptists to liberal Episcopalians to Latin Mass attending Roman Catholics are fervent supporters of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the "separation of church and state" even though the way that they understand the application of that may be different from one another. This is something that disturbed me when I was a devout Christian and still confuses me as a non-Christian PhD researcher in Philosophy.

Nowhere in the Bible, the Creeds or Confessions or Catechisms of the major churches (like the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Anglican 39 Articles, the Reformed Heidelberg Confession, the Baptist Westminster Confession etc) is freedom for all religions and no religion affirmed, and in the Bible it is condemned in no uncertain terms, on several occasions. I can see why Christians would support freedom of worship for different Christian denominations for the sake of unity, but I can't understand how Christians defend the constitutional freedom to be a Satanist, a Wiccan, a neopagan, a Mormon or a secular humanist. What's the Christian basis for this? Please don't answer with a secular or legalistic argument, I know those very well. I'm asking how religious Christians justify that sort of thing through the lens of faith. I know that some Catholics will invoke Vatican II, but even Vatican II does not call other faiths equal or call for total toleration, just for ecumenicusm between Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and Jews.

Me, I support a limited form of freedom of religion because my religion explicitly says that Christians and Jews, as the other two Abrahamic faiths, have a right to freely worship. That's my theological justification, beyond that I do not support the right of pagans or Mormons to worship freely, nor do I think that blasphemy against any of the Abrahamic religions should be treated as protected speech, because it is hate speech.

In the UK, where I'm currently a PhD candidate, there is an impetus within the Labour Party membership to bring back blasphemy laws as part of hate speech legislation, and I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn will support it, and that's a start, but I'm primarily talking about the United States in this comment, because there is no other country with a free speech/religion amendment to their constitution that is as irresponsible and broad as the First Amendment.


Thanks for your time.

"The freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." This applies to religion as well.

 

[Dave-W]

. What are 'arms' in the Second Amendment? The limbs that stick out of your shoulders? Blunderbusses? Halberds? Shuriken? Explosives? Nukes? The meaning of the actual text does not inhere in the bare words.

2nd amendment is rather Off Topic, but the words mean (given the recent history of war with GB) that individuals and "militias" should have weaponry capable of holding off a major military power like Great Brittan. In this day and age that may well include nukes.

 

[Strathos]

2nd amendment is rather Off Topic, but the words mean (given the recent history of war with GB) that individuals and "militias" should have weaponry capable of holding off a major military power like Great Brittan. In this day and age that may well include nukes.

So where can I get my private ICBM silo?

 

[Phil 1:21]

History has taught us that worldly theocracies ultimately devolve into evil. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus command us to institute such governments. Jesus did not convert that woman at the well by threat of civil punishment. He did so with truth and grace.

While I support non-Christians' right to worship whom and how they choose, that is not tantamount to me believing there will not be eternal repercussions for their choices. Scripture is very clear on this.

 

[Dave-W]

So where can I get my private ICBM silo?

I thought I had one, but they dismantled the whole thing about 15 years ago. They turned it into a base ball park (called Nike Park)

 

[essentialsaltes]

2nd amendment is rather Off Topic, but the words mean (given the recent history of war with GB) that individuals and "militias" should have weaponry capable of holding off a major military power like Great Brittan. In this day and age that may well include nukes.

I'm sorry, that's not how the actual text is worded.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm sorry, that's not how the actual text is worded.

OK - and neither is the first amendment worded as a separation either.

 

[essentialsaltes]

OK - and neither is the first amendment worded as a separation either.

Correct, in both cases the text must be interpreted by the courts to determine its meaning.

 

[durangodawood]

I cannot agree with that. Many of the rights granted by constitutions are more or less objective.

For example: German Grundgesetz, Article 2,2: "Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. Personal liberty is inviolable. These rights can only be interfered with based on a law." (My translation)
It is objectivly demonstrable when someones life, integrity or liberty is interfered with.
But when I claim "I believe that, this is my religious or consciential conviction"... on what basis can anyone declare: "No, it is not."....

Thats a much much weaker sort of rights protection than we find for religion, press, assembly, etc in the US Const, which says no law may be effected that violates those rights. Rights are hardly "inviolable" if they may be violated per law.

I think its this higher level of protection that requires the specificity of "religion", "press", and so on. Just like in Germany, we can hardy restrict congress from passing laws that violate anything so broad as "personal liberty". So we picked certain specific rights that are untouchable even by law. I get the problem with defining religion, but given the history of state coercion in religious matters, I appreciate why it was selected for this special level of protection. So we muddle through, trying to define it. I think its worked out ok, more or less, in the USA.

 

[Freodin]

Thats a much much weaker sort of rights protection than we find for religion, press, assembly, etc in the US Const, which says no law may be effected that violates those rights. Rights are hardly "inviolable" if they may be violated per law.

Put that down to the german accuracy with rules. Plus the fact that the Grundgesetz is about 150 years younger than the US constitution, and was able to learn from some "mistakes" made in the meantime.

You will find that, even if the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that, it is exactly what the U.S. judicial system is doing.
For example, there is absolutely no limit given in the constitution for the right to assembly. No limit. At all.

Try to arrange a "black life matters" demonstration on the White House grounds... and see how this will turn out.

I think its this higher level of protection that requires the specificity of "religion", "press", and so on. Just like in Germany, we can hardy restrict congress from passing laws that violate anything so broad as "personal liberty". So we picked certain specific rights that are untouchable even by law. I get the problem with defining religion, but given the history of state coercion in religious matters, I appreciate why it was selected for this special level of protection. So we muddle through, trying to define it. I think its worked out ok, more or less, in the USA.

Even these rights are violable. They might be given a lot of leeway, but when religious practices violate secular law, you don't simply deny that they are religious... you ban them. Example: polygamy, which is still a religious practice amongst some Mormon splinter groups, and definitly an allowed religious practice in Islam... yet illegal.


Hey, and by the way... you didn't address my point at all. Whether a right is violable in exceptions defined by a law or not is completely irrelevant to the question whether it is objectively observable.

I must not be held captive against my will. This is a right guaranteed by Article 2. Except when I have broken the law and the police comes to arrest me. This is an exception defined by the law. This is objective. It is clear when I am held against my will. It is clear when someone has the legal right to hold me against my will.

But it is not clear - it cannot be clear, by definition - to say whether or not I have a religious or consciental conviction.

 

[jayem]

The "separation" and the non-establishment clause were not intended to make a society free from religion; rather, they were to keep the government out of the way of organized religion doing their job.

The 1st Amendment's language was written by James Madison. If anyone's intent is to be considered, then his should be at the top of the list. He professed to be a religious believer, but his writings indicate he clearly believed non-establishment meant separation. And he took a hard line on it. His Detached Memoranda, from around 1817, have some interesting passages. Here he uses the word separation explicitly:

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished in their short history.

He complains about some state laws of the time which favored certain churches, and promoted specific types of worship. He phrases it in colorful religious language:

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

Madison's view of non-establishment even precluded Congress from hiring chaplains with public funds:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

IIRC, he also opposed paid military chaplains for the same reason. And he opposes the President proclaiming national days of fasting and thanksgiving. James Madison would likely be considered a pretty radical separationist today. It's a fairly long essay, but interesting reading:

Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Detached Memoranda

 

[GeorgeJ]

"Religion" in the context of the constitution means "Christian denomination," not "world religions."

This is merely your opinion and has absolutely no basis in fact. If the founders meant "Christian denomination" they would have said "Christian denomination", as they definitely knew the difference between Christian denominations and other religions (Judaism, Islam, etc.)

In addition, nowhere is the word "Christ" or "Christian" written in the Constitution, or even the Declaration of Independence. Don't you think there may be a reason behind that omission?

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams: From the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 - Ratified by Congress and signed into law without no issues about this statement or its secular language.

In addition, to demonstrate that "religion" does not mean "Christian denominations" in the Constitution:
"Perhaps the most furious public debate about Islam came during the ratification process, when many critics of the no-test oath clause of the Constitution said that it opened the door for atheists, or even “Mahometans” to serve in public office. Defenders of the ban on religious tests for national public service (evangelical Baptists were among the strongest advocates of the ban) argued that the government should play no role in policing people’s religious beliefs, and that if it came to pass that the American people wanted to elect a Muslim, then the will of the people should prevail."
"Woven into the fabric of our country"? Islam in Early America

 

[Ringo84]

Religion that is required of you by the government is cheap. That's not faith; it's coercion that cheapens both the state (whose job is not to micromanage religious affairs - or to wade in them at all) and the church.
Ringo