Mark West
Is religion free?
By Mark West
Americans share a common value. We wake up on Sunday mornings with the intention of attending religious services or of staying home. Deciding what to wear, or what not to wear; what service to go to, or not to go to; how to get there, or not; are just a few of the many decisions that are made in regard to attending religious services in our nation. I'm afraid that too many Americans have come to take such choices for granted. Those who have done so make up a majority of America. However, two minority groups realize that such cannot be taken for granted. I am a part of one of those minorities. I understand that rights of Americans to worship freely are under continual attack by the other minority that consists of those who want to limit, inhibit and squelch the rights of religious freedom in America. A majority of Americans unwittingly either go to church or stay home from church unaware that such a choice is under attack in our nation.
Why do Americans have this right? The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "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." Our Founding Fathers had a deep understanding of what religious tyranny was like from their European experiences with the state church of England. Securing religious freedom was a vital and pivotal issue for our founders as they constructed the Bill of Rights. Allowance of religious choice is based on the Christian understanding that men cannot be forced into a relationship with Jesus Christ but are free to choose such or reject such for themselves. Government cannot stand between a man and his religious practice.
Civics classes have failed modern generations of adults in America. Textual criticism of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has given way to popular jargon that doesn't really teach individuals what this nation is really all about. I'm going to textually criticize the First Amendment because I believe such analysis is essential to gaining an insight into what our Founding Fathers intended it to mean for religious practice in America.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Most notably in this phrase is the word with which it begins, Congress. Constitutionally, Congress is the conglomerate of the United States House of Representatives and Senate. Congress is also the only constitutionally authorized law making body in America. Understanding this, we realize that the first amendment should be interpreted properly as a 'thou shalt not' for the United States House of Representative and Senate. Federal Congress is restricted from making laws establishing a state religion and from prohibiting the practice of other religions. Seems pretty simple and it is. Lawyers and activist judges have clouded this issue in recent times having established through legal precedent that school teachers, school principals, school superintendents, business owners, employees, judges, and elected officials somehow constitute "Congress" and have the ability to "make laws" and should be restricted in their religious expressions. I honestly cannot conceive of a more inane idea!
Such skewed and ideological reasoning has brought about the myth of a wall of separation existing between the church and the state. Basically, the church is just supposed to lug whatever the government imposes upon it without recourse because such recourse would somehow violate the first amendment. Allow me to demonstrate just how backwards this sort of thinking is. Imagine for a moment that the same standard was applied to the mass media? Chaos and anarchy would rule and reign because there would no longer exist a watch dog to keep the government in check. Logic of this nature passes laws that restrict what can be said during religious services. Pastor's shouldn't be prohibited from pointing to the evils perpetrated by this or that individual candidate for office, especially in an election year! It is the duty of true patriots to rise against this tide of tyranny that is being pushed upon us by our elected officials.
Recently, this issue came to a head with Alabama judge Roy Moore's display of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse. Somehow an activist judge ruled that Moore constituted "Congress" and had "law making" ability and therefore his placement of the monument in the courthouse "established" Christianity as a national religion. This couldn't be further from the truth and Moore was well within his first amendment rights to defy the court order that demanded the monument be removed. Elected officials do have the right to express their religious faith while in office. Our Founding Fathers prayed before Congressional sessions, attended church in the Congressional building and yet if such were attempted by our leaders today, some activist judge would respond to an ACLU lawsuit and rule such a first amendment violation. Congress cannot make a law that establishes any religion as the American religion, nor can it make a law that prevents religious practice from occurring.
Moving on, "Congress shall make no law ... 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." Congressional law also cannot abridge freedom of speech, press, assembly or petition. Our Founding Fathers believed in a limited federal government and sought to protect the American people from such with these 'thou shalt not' statements that we find in the Bill of Rights. Americans have the freedom to speak their mind, assemble in protest, and petition their government in regard to their grievances without fearing Government reprisal for such actions. Such may be ostracized by the individuals of their communities for the views they hold and express, but the government cannot abridge their right to express those views. We also have a free press that isn't under the thumb of the federal government and can serve as a watch dog against federal government corruption, although the press has recently failed in this arena and in some cases has become a part of that corruption. What we must see from the First Amendment is that our Founding Fathers endowed and empowered the citizens of our land. They were endowed with personal liberty and empowered by individual responsibility to their own lives as best they saw fit. Modern government continues to shamefully encroach on such individual liberties and have thus put the average American into bondage to the whims of the government.
Where I stand:
Religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment. Any Congressional encroachment on this right should be defied by true patriots. Taxing of religious groups that speak on politics is a violation of the First Amendment and should be repealed. Refusing to allow elected officials to express their religious beliefs is also a violation and should be stopped. Loosely interpreting Congress to be people in education, business, commerce, et al; and restricting their rights of religious expression is also a violation of the First Amendment and must come to an end. Government can give money to religious charities without diminishing their religious message on equal footing with non-religious charities. Governments using these monies to silence the message of religious charities are violating the First Amendment and must be held accountable. The American church is not a state endowed, nor operated, nor controlled, church. It is a free church!
Where the candidates stand:
President George W. Bush (Republican Platform) seeks to develop a partnership between government and religion in providing social help in America. Faith has a place in society when it comes to healing social ills and should be encouraged through government funding. No funding should be given to groups that discriminate based on religion. Funding should be given to groups regardless of their faith structure, mission statement or their being led by religious leaders. A major problem that I see is that the government funding does come with strings attached, the church cannot discriminate on the basis of whom to perform charity for. I also have a problem with the President's failure to address tax issues that have been used by the government to silence the church during election years through the 501(c)3 and 527 rules. I give President George W. Bush a B+ (9 points).
Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Platform) proposes hate crime legislation to protect freedom of religion. He believes that no public funds to organizations that discriminate based on religion or that proselytize. I have major problems with this view. First, hate crime legislation does nothing more than prop religious people up as some sort of "better" people and therefore doesn't promote individual equality. Second, government funding shouldn't be used to silence the message of proselytization. Third, there are no comments on protecting churches and religious groups from oppressive government censure during election years through taxes. I give Senator John F. Kerry a D (2 points).
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Platform) believes that no government actions should aid or attack religious groups. He opposes taxes on religious organizations. He believes that no government should harass people based on their religious beliefs. He believes the government shouldn't advocate forced proselytization because an individual's religion is their own individual decision. My problem here is that Badnarik doesn't want government aid to go to religious groups. I have a problem with this because religious groups shouldn't be discriminated against when it comes to government funding for charity. I give Michael Badnarik a B+ (9 points).
Michael Peroutka (Constitution Platform) believe that the federal government authority has no authority to grant or deny rights to religious groups. He believes that no taxes on religious groups should be allowed because such lead to government control of churches or religious groups. My only problem is that Peroutka seems to be against government funding going to religious charities, but I believe that he believes that because the government uses the funding to try and control the church's message. I give Michael Peroutka an A- (10 points).
David Cobb (Green Platform) believes in community involvement and in encouraging cultural diversity as building blocks for a stronger nation. Cobb says little else on religion other than that he believes that such serves a role in communities and in diversity. I don't believe that Cobb supports government funding for religious charities or the removal of the tax stigma from churches that speak on political candidates in election years. I give David Cobb a D+ (3 points).
Ralph Nader (Independent Platform) has very little on his web site in regard to religious freedom and has not responded to email requests for such information. I don't believe he wants religious groups removed from American society but I don't see where he has much of a place for them other than in similar manner to David Cobb's stance. I give Ralph Nader a D- (1 points).
So as it stands, Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) has 10 points, President George W. Bush (Republican Party) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) have 9 points, David Cobb (Green Party) has 3 points, Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Party) has 2 points, and Ralph Nader (Reform/Independent) has 1 point.
© Mark West
Americans share a common value. We wake up on Sunday mornings with the intention of attending religious services or of staying home. Deciding what to wear, or what not to wear; what service to go to, or not to go to; how to get there, or not; are just a few of the many decisions that are made in regard to attending religious services in our nation. I'm afraid that too many Americans have come to take such choices for granted. Those who have done so make up a majority of America. However, two minority groups realize that such cannot be taken for granted. I am a part of one of those minorities. I understand that rights of Americans to worship freely are under continual attack by the other minority that consists of those who want to limit, inhibit and squelch the rights of religious freedom in America. A majority of Americans unwittingly either go to church or stay home from church unaware that such a choice is under attack in our nation.
Why do Americans have this right? The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "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." Our Founding Fathers had a deep understanding of what religious tyranny was like from their European experiences with the state church of England. Securing religious freedom was a vital and pivotal issue for our founders as they constructed the Bill of Rights. Allowance of religious choice is based on the Christian understanding that men cannot be forced into a relationship with Jesus Christ but are free to choose such or reject such for themselves. Government cannot stand between a man and his religious practice.
Civics classes have failed modern generations of adults in America. Textual criticism of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has given way to popular jargon that doesn't really teach individuals what this nation is really all about. I'm going to textually criticize the First Amendment because I believe such analysis is essential to gaining an insight into what our Founding Fathers intended it to mean for religious practice in America.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Most notably in this phrase is the word with which it begins, Congress. Constitutionally, Congress is the conglomerate of the United States House of Representatives and Senate. Congress is also the only constitutionally authorized law making body in America. Understanding this, we realize that the first amendment should be interpreted properly as a 'thou shalt not' for the United States House of Representative and Senate. Federal Congress is restricted from making laws establishing a state religion and from prohibiting the practice of other religions. Seems pretty simple and it is. Lawyers and activist judges have clouded this issue in recent times having established through legal precedent that school teachers, school principals, school superintendents, business owners, employees, judges, and elected officials somehow constitute "Congress" and have the ability to "make laws" and should be restricted in their religious expressions. I honestly cannot conceive of a more inane idea!
Such skewed and ideological reasoning has brought about the myth of a wall of separation existing between the church and the state. Basically, the church is just supposed to lug whatever the government imposes upon it without recourse because such recourse would somehow violate the first amendment. Allow me to demonstrate just how backwards this sort of thinking is. Imagine for a moment that the same standard was applied to the mass media? Chaos and anarchy would rule and reign because there would no longer exist a watch dog to keep the government in check. Logic of this nature passes laws that restrict what can be said during religious services. Pastor's shouldn't be prohibited from pointing to the evils perpetrated by this or that individual candidate for office, especially in an election year! It is the duty of true patriots to rise against this tide of tyranny that is being pushed upon us by our elected officials.
Recently, this issue came to a head with Alabama judge Roy Moore's display of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse. Somehow an activist judge ruled that Moore constituted "Congress" and had "law making" ability and therefore his placement of the monument in the courthouse "established" Christianity as a national religion. This couldn't be further from the truth and Moore was well within his first amendment rights to defy the court order that demanded the monument be removed. Elected officials do have the right to express their religious faith while in office. Our Founding Fathers prayed before Congressional sessions, attended church in the Congressional building and yet if such were attempted by our leaders today, some activist judge would respond to an ACLU lawsuit and rule such a first amendment violation. Congress cannot make a law that establishes any religion as the American religion, nor can it make a law that prevents religious practice from occurring.
Moving on, "Congress shall make no law ... 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." Congressional law also cannot abridge freedom of speech, press, assembly or petition. Our Founding Fathers believed in a limited federal government and sought to protect the American people from such with these 'thou shalt not' statements that we find in the Bill of Rights. Americans have the freedom to speak their mind, assemble in protest, and petition their government in regard to their grievances without fearing Government reprisal for such actions. Such may be ostracized by the individuals of their communities for the views they hold and express, but the government cannot abridge their right to express those views. We also have a free press that isn't under the thumb of the federal government and can serve as a watch dog against federal government corruption, although the press has recently failed in this arena and in some cases has become a part of that corruption. What we must see from the First Amendment is that our Founding Fathers endowed and empowered the citizens of our land. They were endowed with personal liberty and empowered by individual responsibility to their own lives as best they saw fit. Modern government continues to shamefully encroach on such individual liberties and have thus put the average American into bondage to the whims of the government.
Where I stand:
Religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment. Any Congressional encroachment on this right should be defied by true patriots. Taxing of religious groups that speak on politics is a violation of the First Amendment and should be repealed. Refusing to allow elected officials to express their religious beliefs is also a violation and should be stopped. Loosely interpreting Congress to be people in education, business, commerce, et al; and restricting their rights of religious expression is also a violation of the First Amendment and must come to an end. Government can give money to religious charities without diminishing their religious message on equal footing with non-religious charities. Governments using these monies to silence the message of religious charities are violating the First Amendment and must be held accountable. The American church is not a state endowed, nor operated, nor controlled, church. It is a free church!
Where the candidates stand:
President George W. Bush (Republican Platform) seeks to develop a partnership between government and religion in providing social help in America. Faith has a place in society when it comes to healing social ills and should be encouraged through government funding. No funding should be given to groups that discriminate based on religion. Funding should be given to groups regardless of their faith structure, mission statement or their being led by religious leaders. A major problem that I see is that the government funding does come with strings attached, the church cannot discriminate on the basis of whom to perform charity for. I also have a problem with the President's failure to address tax issues that have been used by the government to silence the church during election years through the 501(c)3 and 527 rules. I give President George W. Bush a B+ (9 points).
Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Platform) proposes hate crime legislation to protect freedom of religion. He believes that no public funds to organizations that discriminate based on religion or that proselytize. I have major problems with this view. First, hate crime legislation does nothing more than prop religious people up as some sort of "better" people and therefore doesn't promote individual equality. Second, government funding shouldn't be used to silence the message of proselytization. Third, there are no comments on protecting churches and religious groups from oppressive government censure during election years through taxes. I give Senator John F. Kerry a D (2 points).
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Platform) believes that no government actions should aid or attack religious groups. He opposes taxes on religious organizations. He believes that no government should harass people based on their religious beliefs. He believes the government shouldn't advocate forced proselytization because an individual's religion is their own individual decision. My problem here is that Badnarik doesn't want government aid to go to religious groups. I have a problem with this because religious groups shouldn't be discriminated against when it comes to government funding for charity. I give Michael Badnarik a B+ (9 points).
Michael Peroutka (Constitution Platform) believe that the federal government authority has no authority to grant or deny rights to religious groups. He believes that no taxes on religious groups should be allowed because such lead to government control of churches or religious groups. My only problem is that Peroutka seems to be against government funding going to religious charities, but I believe that he believes that because the government uses the funding to try and control the church's message. I give Michael Peroutka an A- (10 points).
David Cobb (Green Platform) believes in community involvement and in encouraging cultural diversity as building blocks for a stronger nation. Cobb says little else on religion other than that he believes that such serves a role in communities and in diversity. I don't believe that Cobb supports government funding for religious charities or the removal of the tax stigma from churches that speak on political candidates in election years. I give David Cobb a D+ (3 points).
Ralph Nader (Independent Platform) has very little on his web site in regard to religious freedom and has not responded to email requests for such information. I don't believe he wants religious groups removed from American society but I don't see where he has much of a place for them other than in similar manner to David Cobb's stance. I give Ralph Nader a D- (1 points).
So as it stands, Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) has 10 points, President George W. Bush (Republican Party) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) have 9 points, David Cobb (Green Party) has 3 points, Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Party) has 2 points, and Ralph Nader (Reform/Independent) has 1 point.
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
