|
The US is both a religious and a secular country, and each in its proper sphere. Civil law and the government of the United States must remain secular in order to guarantee the right of religious Americans as well as the non-religious to freedom of conscience.
The majority of individuals in the United States identify as some type of Christian. A vast majority of Americans identify with some religion if both Christianity and minority religions are included. Surveys which attempt to determine how many Americans are "non-religious" have asked the question in so many different ways that results vary widely. Some of the more recent surveys place the number of non-religious Americans at somewhere between 21 percent and 11 percent of the population.(1)
| The overwhelming religiosity of so many Americans is used to support the notion that we should mix religion and government. |
It is this overwhelming religiosity of so many Americans that is often used to support the notion that we should mix religion and government. Generally, the argument is posed to me in some variation of the following form: "Most Americans are Christian, so we are a Christian nation, and if you're not Christian, then you should go to another country."
Recent attempts to publicize a revisionist history of the United States as a Christian nation notwithstanding, the Treaty of Tripoli (initiated by George Washington and signed into law under the presidency of John Adams) explicitly stated that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (Robin Morgan, Fighting Words: A Toolkit for Combating the Religious Right (New York: Nation Books, 2006, p. 47).
Nontheists as Unpatriotic!
|
Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
|
Our nation's governing document went to great lengths to protect minorities from a tyranny of the majority. It is clear in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights that such protection is especially important when it comes to religious freedom. That freedom includes the right to practice no religion at all.
And if there is any doubt how far the government ought to be entangled with religion, one needs to look no further than Jefferson's statement that in creating the First Amendment, the Founders were "thus building a wall of separation between church and state" (Fighting Words, p. 16. Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury [Connecticut] Baptist Association, January 1, 1802).
Attempts to mix religion and government are usually couched in terms of how innocuous non-sectarian religious practices are. Placing religion into government is not innocuous. In its most virulent use, dividing public-school children into who believes we are "under God" and who does not, is especially cruel. Students who do not recite this part of today's version of the Pledge of Allegiance are often ostracized and harassed. The mere fact that this is how we purport to show patriotism tells every nontheist that we cannot be considered patriotic Americans. The new words were placed between "one nation" and "indivisible" in 1954, in an attempt to divide Americans into who did and did not believe in a god during a period in our nation's history when atheism was equated with Communism in its most oppressive incarnations.
Even the notion of which religious exercises are "inclusive" (though even so-called inclusive practices generally leave out nontheists) are often based on ignorance of the diversity of religions. Monotheistic masculine forms for a deity are generally considered to cover every religious person, though of course they do not. Some Muslims who might welcome the inclusion of all three Abrahamic traditions in the imposition of religion on the US government, ought to consider that including three instead of one religion leaves the rest of us as excluded as Islam would be if we bought into the myth that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation.
America is full of very religious people who have an absolute right to believe as they wish. They have the right to pray in their churches, in their homes, and even in public streets and parks. As long as it does not offend an overriding state interest, individuals also have the right to behave according to their own beliefs.
Thus, for example, a person who does not believe that two people of the same sex should marry has the absolute right to choose not to marry someone of the same sex. His or her church, synagogue, mosque, etc. also has the right to limit whom they will marry to the dictates of their religion. They can even teach their children that they do not believe in same-sex unions. However, the civil contract that a government entity gives two people who do choose to marry should not be based on theology. Likewise, if a person's belief is that a newly fertilized egg is a "baby," that person may choose not to do research on stem cells. However, this theology must not be used to curtail legitimate research conducted by those who do not hold this belief.
Religion Discriminatory Laws
| The words "under God" were inserted during a period in our nation's history when atheism was equated with Communism in its most oppressive incarnations. |
Recent attacks on secular law have been couched in terms of free exercise of religion. For a number of years, religion-based social service providers were careful to follow secular rules of employment when using government grant monies. In the 109th Congress, the US House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Head Start reauthorization which would allow religious providers of that federally funded program to discriminate based on religion. To their credit, the Senate did not act on the bill, and the law still protects against such blatant employment discrimination.
The House also passed a Department of Defense spending bill which would have permitted unwanted proselytizing of soldiers in the military. The Senate stopped this blatant attempt to impose unwanted religious practice on military personnel. In doing so, they likely saved the entire military chaplaincy program, since the only reason the government is permitted to fund military chaplains is to accommodate the free exercise needs of the military personnel and their families — not to fund missionaries in the military.
Many Americans vote for elected representatives based upon whether a candidate professes to share their religious beliefs. The rationale is that if the candidate shares a theological belief system with the voter, then his or her votes on issues of importance will reflect a shared view.
As many voters discover, this is not necessarily the case.
When I served as a Nevada State Senator in the 1990s for example, my ethical life stance more closely mirrored many of my religious constituents than did many representatives who shared their religion. Many Americans will not vote for a fully qualified atheist to represent them, even though we might more closely reflect their views on issues.
I applaud the dozen members of Congress whose listing next to the category "religion" in Capitol Advantage's Congress at Your Fingertips handbook reads "Not stated." Lest anyone think that they can conclude a lack of religiosity from a decision not to state it, I know that at least one of these members is a religious Christian. These members simply acknowledge that the question is not politically relevant.
I am hopeful that the 110th Congress will not focus on imposing religion into secular law. Not because the new leaders are less religious, but because they understand that the best way to protect not only me and other non-theists, but also themselves and other theists is to keep religion and government in their proper spheres.
Although I hold a minority belief, I have no intention of trying to "convert" anyone. I am willing to live peaceably with my many theistic neighbors, family members, and friends. I have participated in public service and social justice work with members of various religions. What I will do is raise my voice against attempts to impose someone's religion on me or my government. Imposing religion into government has proved to be detrimental to members of every religion.
One need only look at the demonization of minority religious beliefs in theocratic nations to see that the question is not which religion should be imposed. The question — which we must answer "No!" — is whether religion should be entangled into government at all.
____________________
|
what is this?
This widget will help you to store, organize, search, and manage your favorite online content through a range of social bookmarking services. These services permit users to save links to websites that they want to remember and/or share. These bookmarks are usually public, but can be saved privately, shared only with specified people or groups, or shared only inside certain networks. Authorized people can usually view these bookmarks chronologically, by category or tags, or through a search engine. Most social bookmarking services also permit their users to vote and rank public bookmarks to determine which are the best ones according to the number of votes they get.
|
