The Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom of Choice

U.S Postage Stamp, 1957

Image via Wikipedia

February 18, 2012

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”  First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Such simple words.  Congress can’t pass a law that establishes a religion for the people of this country – not your religion; not my religion.  Nor can Congress pass a law that prohibits us from freely exercising our religions.  That seems pretty straight-forward.  Congress should basically stay out of our religious lives.

Of course, they do not.   Congress involves itself in the business of religion all the time.  If religion involves itself in providing food, shelter or other non-spiritual services to people, whether those people are congregants or not, religious businesses are (with a few exceptions) subject to laws that make sure that food is safe, that shelter actually shelters and so forth.

As far as the actual practice of religious beliefs, (again, with a few notable exceptions) Congress is required by that First Amendment clause to stay out of it.

But, what happens when laws regarding the business of religion conflict with the practice of religious beliefs?  Such a conflict arose this past week in the brouhaha over whether Catholic business institutions such as colleges had to meet the new health care requirements of offering contraception coverage to female employees, both Catholic and non-Catholic, in their insurance polices.  The religious leaders say violates the free exercise of their religious belief that the use of contraception is a sin.

Or, when people, out of religious conviction, try to push through laws that limit the secular rights of others who do not share their religious convictions?  Such conflicts are ongoing across the country as laws now being pressed in several states to limit a woman’s secular right to an abortion within the context of Roe v. Wade or prevent a gay couple’s equal right to marry under the Constitution’s equal rights clause.

We all, of course, Christian and non-Christian, live in a country designed by the founding fathers as a secular state in order that one group could not use the various parts of government to press its particular religious beliefs on everyone else to the detriment of their beliefs.  Eventually these issues will be settled in court, (at no small cost to the presenting and defending groups alike).

This is as it should be in a secular society that respects the rights of all of its citizens.  Freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion, as unthinkable as that may be to some people of religion.  Because you have no real freedom of your religious views if you have no freedom from mine when our views are in conflict.  I have no more right to demand, under penalty of law, that you live your life according to my atheistic beliefs than you do to demand the opposite.  Not if we are going to preserve a free society based on equal rights and freedom of choice.

In a free society, we wrestle with our beliefs, especially our religious beliefs.  Otherwise, belief degenerates into ideology and dogma that allows no space for others to have freedom of choice in their beliefs.

Since I do not believe God exists, I cannot say that life is sacred (blessed by God).  I can say that it is endlessly fascinating, mysterious and worthy of care on our part.  Nor can I say that even humans – let alone other life forms – have an “inherent” right to life.  When animals are not healthy enough to carry a fetus to term or the fetus is too damaged, animals spontaneously abort – human animals do too.  About 15-25% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage.

When I look around and see the misery of war, hunger, economic dislocation, disease or abuse that so many of humanity’s children are born into, I can’t in good conscience demand that every woman bring every pregnancy to term for the sake of someone else’s religious beliefs.  Being a woman, I have to trust that most women will make the right choice for both themselves and that yet unborn life inside as to whether or not to carry it to term.  It is not my choice to make for someone else.  I certainly can’t say that it should be the choice of a group of men, who will never be pregnant themselves, based on their religious beliefs.

For those of you who believe it’s the church’s responsibility to alleviate that suffering and therefore it is no excuse for a woman to have that right, I would only say that that the church has been around for thousands of years with no real change in the basic misery level that I can see.

Nor do I feel qualified, as a straight woman who lived through her own bad marriage and divorce, to deny a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry based on someone else’s religious beliefs.  Especially since, in this country at least, the granting of a right to marry is the prerogative of the state through licensing – even in religious marriages.  Only the “blessing” of a marriage through a religious ceremony is granted to the church in our society.  And our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all of its citizens.  I can only believe that among consenting adults that applies to marriage, whether you are gay or straight.

Christians who long for the state to make law according to the dictates of their religious beliefs need to think through the consequences of such a desire. Once that foot is in the door, so to speak, you will have to live with it for a long time – just as those who live in countries that are ruled by other religions’ laws.  What if it were not your particular sect of Christianity that won the lottery?  What if the Mormons took over and did away with your morning coffee or tea?  What if the Baptists took over and everyone had to be dunked instead of sprinkled?

What if it wasn’t even Christianity that won the lottery? If the Muslims won it, would they respect your communion wine or would the Orthodox Jews allow you your pork chops and morning bacon?

Yes, these are rather silly examples.  But there are “Christian” sects out there who advocate for Old Testament law – including the stoning of adulterers and gays, for example.  Are you willing to live with the consequences of their winning the lottery?

The world is in flux right now.  The American Empire is having to retrench on many fronts.  So much of what happens next will depend on whether the world can maintain the delicate dance of globalization and world finance as energy supplies increasingly rely on harder to get, more expensive and, therefore, less efficient energy sources.

In times of turmoil, especially economic turmoil like we are still in now, people of power – whether religious, political or economic – are not above using that turmoil to grab more power, nor are they above using the other two to advance their own.  We all will have to wrestle with whether we are dragged along in the power play, blindly clinging to a sclerotic dogma or whether in spite of faith in our own belief system, we are willing to allow others the right to choose their way for themselves.  Neither freedom of religion nor freedom of choice will survive otherwise.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom of Choice

  1. pamela says:

    Bravo Linda! Great post as always.
    this really bothers me that for some reason, people would get their panties (or boxers) in a wad because someone may or may not want to use contraceptives. It’s like a creepy throwback to the dark ages or something.
    I’ve noticed that, the more religious people try to force their beliefs on others, the less likely those religious people are to have faith.
    if you really have faith, why do you need to force others to conform to your beliefs?

    keep up the great writing Linda!

  2. Bill Hicks says:

    The problem is that in order to have true freedom of religion, religion should play no part in governance whatsoever. Religion is by definition faith based, of course, which is in direct contradiction to good governing, which should be based upon fact and logic. Europeans instinctively know this, which is why overtly religious candidates have a hard time winning office over there. Of course, one of the likely reasons that Europe is able to be so much more secular is that the Continent spent a couple of centuries kicking out so many of its religious extremists, many of whom then set sail for America.

    • theozarker says:

      You’re right Bill, when it comes to religious beliefs, but when religious practice becomes big business (as it often does around here) I think the government should treat it like any other business, including regulation and taxation. And, LOL, if I recall, old Tom Paine and a few others among the founding fathers were among Europe’s castaways.

  3. Pingback: Freedom of Religion… but for Christians only. « Saira Says

  4. graveday says:

    Well done Linda. I just end up spitting and frothy that we still have to deal with such stupidity and that someone like Santorum can get a hearing, much less make a run for president. Crikey and gadzooks.

  5. Focis says:

    What exactly is America’s law? If a doctor kills an fetus an hour before it is born, this is abortion and completely legal and if a doctor kills a baby an hour after it is born, this is murder and a grave felony?

    • theozarker says:

      Hi Focis, welcome to the board. To answer the first part of your question, there are two Federal laws applicable to abortion – Roe v. Wade (1973) and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003).

      From Wikipedia
      Regarding Roe v. Wade
      “The Court did not recognize a right to abortion in all cases:
      State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.[7]
      The Court held that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.”

      Regarding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
      “On October 2, 2003, with a vote of 281-142, the House again approved a measure banning the procedure, called the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Through this legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and face civil lawsuits for performing such an abortion. A woman who undergoes the procedure cannot be prosecuted under the measure. The measure contains an exemption to allow the procedure if the woman’s life is threatened. On October 21, 2003, the United States Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 64-34, with a number of Democrats joining in support. The bill was signed by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003, but a federal judge blocked its enforcement in several states just a few hours after it became public law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on the procedure in the case Gonzales v. Carhart on April 18, 2007, signaling a substantial change in the Court’s approach to abortion law.[13] The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not conflict with previous Court decisions regarding abortion.”

      To answer the second part of your question, here are some articles on Dilation and Extraction and Intact Dilation and Extraction (the correct medical terms for the political term, “partial-birth abortion”.
      As you can see, babies are not killed and removed from the uterus “an hour before it is born” in these procedures, nor are they done on whim. They are done as medical procedures in a hospital and for medical reasons (the mother’s health or life is at stake due to her own health problems or the state of the fetus’s health.

      Again, welcome and thanks for posting.

  6. graveday says:

    Focis, America’s law is different depending on where in the world you live. If the US military is present then age doesn’t matter, it is mostly just murder.
    If it is not the military, but just corporations selling shit poison products, then age still doesn’t matter, it is again mostly murder. Ask nations to the south of us.
    If it is none of the above, but just religious ngo’s, then I might still make a case for murder.
    Sorry to be so blunt, but it is much more than just about hours. gd

  7. greenmom says:

    Outstanding article and your reply to Focis is spot on and is never explained in the MSM so people think abortions are done at any stage of pregnancy for frivolous reasons. Thank you.

    • theozarker says:

      Hi and welcome, greenmom. Yes, it frustrates me to no end that even the most aggregious lies are rarely challenged by the press. No wonder that those who yell loudest about these issues are often the most misinformed about them.

      Thanks for commenting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s