Chameleon12

Don’t Say Freedom of Religion
by Neil Stevens

We don’t need freedom of religion in this country. I’ll tell you why: that bland phrase, thanks to the popularization of the expression ‘separation of church and state’, has had its meaning warped in the minds of the public.

We need to get back to the words in the Bill of Rights: We must fight for free exercise of religion.

The Constitution is over 100 years old, as Ezra Klein infamously pointed out. Our original copies are faded and hard to read. The language is old, the capitalization is obsolete, and the handwriting looks funny. They used the Germanic ‘long s’ in English back then, leading countless schoolkids to ask “Why does it say Congrefs?”

In short, nobody’s read it. All they know is what the teevee has told them about Thomas Jefferson writing a deist Bible and pushing for the Separation of Church and State. That’s a concept never mentioned in the document, but it’s popularly believed to be in there.

So when we talk about ‘freedom of religion’ as a shorthand for the parts of the First Amendment relating to religion, people are only thinking of the first half. But there are in fact two distinct religious liberties recognized in the First Amendment. Congress is barred from establishing a religion, meaning we would not have a Church of America, in the way that the Church of England was foisted upon the English people, at the expense of the freedom of many Catholics.

But that’s not all! In addition to the prohibition on the establishment of religion, the Congress is also barred from “impeding the free exercise of religion.” That freedom is just as important as any other in the Constitution. If they can take that away, they can take away any of our freedoms.

So when the IRS comes after Christians, don’t talk about freedom of religion. People will imagine we’re talking about the right to think what you want, and read from the Bible you want. No, the fight here isn’t the fight against the establishment of a church. What the radicals want to take away is the right to exercise your religion. They want you to think what you want, but live by what the state tells you.

So say those words every time: “Free exercise of religion.” Language matters for the long, difficult fight ahead.

okie don

" Free exercise of religion" RIGHT!
When in college years and years ago, I recall a professor saying that the reason the
pilgrims left England is they were being forced to accept the Episcopalian religion.
No ' Gubment' should force the people to accept any specific religious philosophy or belief.

Here, here

kmsmncm

Well said! So many of our fellow citizens are ignorant of those facts and even supposedly educated people use the 'separation of church and state' meme. The Constitution is little understood by the average American; it isn't a long document and is fairly easy to understand, if read critically.

okie don

Agreed.
Many don't know what the 2nd Amendment is about. Schools quit teaching civics - purposely...

fredsgirl1

The constitution is a document that is both strong as iron and as weak as tissue paper. The framers understood that there are people in our society that demand they have supremacy over all others. Religion, all religions as far as I can see, will not be happy until they force everyone to worship as they worship. Anything less is an infringement of their rights. They do not consider the rights of others. As an atheist I am subjected to prothlizers coming to my door and trying to instruct me in their brand of religion with no understanding that they have no moral right to insult my intelligence in such a way. But if I insist that they stop they are outraged. For the record, I have never had an American muslim doing the same thing, or a buddhist. It seems to be the preferred behaviour of Christians.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

That is true, the exercise of one's religion must not be impeded by legislation, policy, or public sentiment. There are also other freedoms implicit here as well, and that is contained in the rest of the "Bill of Rights", as well as the rest of the Constitution and it's amendments. Problems arise when activists want to apply a hierarchy of importance to the rights delineated in that document, as in "this right is superior to that right" - which is an un-Constitutional sentiment right off the bat. None of the rights are mutually exclusive, one cannot pick and choose which rights one wants and which to reject, they are all equally valid and interrelated.

As an example of the "menu style" of applying the Constitution, the 2nd amendment has more words in it than just "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon", but certain people wish to ignore the rest of those words as though they have no relationship to the amendment. Picking single phrases out of a paragraph, without applying the concepts in those missing words, is how activists twist the meaning of the Constitution to say what they want it to say.

What is wrong with simply applying the Constitution as a whole? Nothing at all - except - that often precludes special interests narratives.

Homestead

First of all, Jefferson's Bible was not a deist bible.
He was concerned that the ministry was using The death and rise of Christ as a way to pollute the word of Christ and dilute the teachings of Christ.
He didn't feel that he would have the time left in his life to resolve what the divinity of Christ meant.
But, he felt that everyone would benefit from following the teachings of Christ.
So the bible he wrote was a bible where he cut and pasted Christ's teachings into a new book. To the best of his ability, he put them in order, so that a person could know Jesus from beginning to end and know all that he said.
The purpose of the book was to show what Jesus taught, it didn't go beyond that, because he hadn't spent the time at that point to resolve it within his own mind what the divinity of Christ meant.
But, he never denied it, he just didn't know what to think of it, yet.

There is no separation of church and state. Jefferson never said that there was.
The separation he was talking about was the separation between the Federal government and state government. Think of it as a wall.
Religion is under the jurisdiction of the state or the people themselves, not the federal government.

JimMe

But even “Free exercise of religion” has unwritten limitations... The meaning related to the absence of words has to be recognized as well... When “Free exercise of religion” violates Law, the Law takes precedent... So, when a Religion gives a husband the Right to stone his wife or children for breaking a Religious Tenant, and the State does not, the husband will be arrested, tried, and, if convicted, imprisoned or executed...

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

I agree , I have many times answered the door to be asked to look at someones view but simply tell them to leave and close the door .. part of some religious dogma says they must seek out non-believers to convert .. Simply close the door , if they continue call law enforcement or escort them off your property yourself , they seem to quickly disappear when confronted ..

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

Islam is NOT a "religion"! Under the guise of being called a "religion", true muslims cannot be happy until they force everyone to worship as they worship and they don't care about the rights of others. They don't come to your door because they don't have to; they have a larger stage: the MSM and the government, just to name two.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

'Separation of church & state' is a phrase that appears nowhere in The Constitution but in a letter of assurance to a Danbury Connecticut Baptist congregation by Thomas Jefferson. And to cite him as a source of the true meaning of The Constitution is more than a little disingenuous because he had no hand in its writing nor the deliberations thereon, him being in Paris serving as our ambassador at the time. The reports I've read are that he was upset when he returned to the new United States of America & read it.

I understand no minutes of the deliberations were kept but years later one delegate wrote a book on it.

To discern the meanings of the various phrases,it is useful to refer to the deliberations of the various ratification conventions of the states.

Finally, Congress, not the states, are prohibited from establishing a religion. At least one and possibly two states had an established religion at the time of the writing and ratifications.

Ratification was by no means assured. Most of The Federalist Papers were written to induce a reluctant New York to ratify. New Hamphire became the ninth and deciding state to ratify.

Nevertheless, North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't ratify until well after George Washington became president and The First Congress was in session! North Carolina ratified leaving Rhode Island as the holdout.

I've read that Washington was so incensed at its reluctance that he considered invading and dividing it between Massachusetts and Connecticut. Congress threatened to begin treating it as a foreign country, with tariffs on its goods traded to other states. Rhode Island ratified by act of its legislature, the only state to do so and it passed by just 34-32. Others had ratification conventions.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Would you be offended if I called you a liar? I've had many weird Christian sects/cults come to my home in my 76 years and after telling them I wasn't interested and thanked them every one of them from Mormons to Jehovah's Whitness, both sects I vehemently disagree with, politely departed. All Christians understand the Great Commission issued by Christ some follow it by the lives they lead, others by door knocking. I'm guessing those knocking at your door that left outraged was because of the way you treated and spoke to them and not the way you present it. Furthermore, Muslims proselytize with a sword and every time you tell a hot dog vendor to make you one with everything you're practicing Buddhism.

Blue Fox

When are the courts going to realize that atheism is its own religion and that if the Congress can make "..no law respecting the establishment of religion" the courts sure as hell can't.

Re: Thomas Jefferson. In his "Syllabus" Jefferson said "I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others..."

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

They have every right to ring your doorbell and present their arguments. You have every right, once their purpose is revealed, to tell them to get off your property or leave your entrance, if you live in a multi-dwelling building. If you consider it an insult to your intelligence, perhaps they consider your reaction an insult to theirs.

The Christians denominations that proselytize door-to-door are mostly Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I am not aware of others but there might be some.

There aren't enough Muslims or Buddhists in this country for many of them to be touring that way. It is likely not a part of their duties but many Muslims maintain their obligation is to give the non-believers the choice of death or conversion and sometimes conversion isn't included. Perhaps you'd prefer that. I have little or no experience with Buddhists.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Seems like the courts are more willing to give deference and respect to atheism than anyone else. Perhaps this helps explain why increasing numbers of us have little respect for lawyers, judges and courts. Three professions that have lost respect in my own lifetime are clergy, lawyers, and teachers and it is due entirely to compromise.