Freedom FROM Religion - Good or Evil?

I was inspired to write this article after reading several blogs by people complaining about being subjected to religious images, such as the cross, the ten commandments and nativity scenes, in public and being bothered by “religious fanatics” knocking on their doors or preaching on street corners. These people are claiming, and demanding, that freedom ”of” religion includes freedom “from” religion. It immediately occurred to me that these same people never seem to be offended by the constant imagery of murders, brutality and bizarre sexual portrayals that they are being subjected to every day on TV, in the movies, in video games and on the Internet (please remember that the average American child will witness more than 8000 murders on TV before graduating from elementary school and more than 200,000 acts of violence on TV by the age of 18 and this doesn’t even include the abundance of sex and violence in video games and on the Internet). In essence these people are attempting to use the same First Amendment, that protects this right to broadcast sex and violence, to impede the freedom of speech that supports freedom of religion. If I had to choose between being constantly bombarded with images of bizarre sex, violence and murder or with fleeting reminders of our traditional Christian heritage, I think I would choose the fleeting reminders of our Christian heritage. Why wouldn’t these people complain as loudly about the evil they are constantly confronted with, every day, in the mass media?

I was also inspired to write this article by the actions of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the mass media, and even the United States Government, who are manipulating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to silence religious speech and to discriminate against Christians. Recently I was appalled to hear the outcry from the media and government officials when a Catholic bishop in Massachusetts suggested, privately, to one of the Kennedys that he not attend church because he supported abortion in the United States House of Representatives. Some pundits rationalized that the church has tax exempt status and should, therefore, be barred from exercising its first amendment freedom of speech rights to speak out against abortion. How do people justify denying the first amendment rights of others simply because they have a different point of view from their own (and theirs isn’t even in the majority)? Yet, abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood speak out in favor of murdering unborn babies, and no one ever questions their right to freedom of speech (even though speech advocating murder and/or violence is an exception, and is not protected by the First Amendment) . Furthermore, nobody questioned the actions of the Pro Abortion organizations who attempted to forcibly silent the voices of Tim Tebow and his mother who appeared in an anti abortion commercial during the 2010 Super Bowl. The ACLU and other groups advocating freedom “from” religion have used the fallacy of “separation of church and state” to:

- Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for

Sunday worship services.

- Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed

from public buildings.

- Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or

football games.

- Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction

for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

- Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade

- Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”(1)

On October 22, 2009, hidden within a defense department bill, the U.S. government passed the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act which intentionally chills the free speech rights of Christians to express their biblically based opinions about homosexuality and same sex marriage. The Federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and similar local laws, have already been used to force people to take actions that violate their religious beliefs: In New Mexico, a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a same sex marriage, based upon his religious beliefs, was fined by the states Human Rights Commission. In New Jersey, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was threatened with prosecution for abiding by its religious beliefs and refusing to allow its private property to be used for same sex civil unions. Similar laws in other countries have been used to arrest and interrogate clergy preaching against homosexuality using biblical scriptures. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act represents the first time the U.S. government has codified disapproval of a widely held religious belief (that homosexuality is a sin condemned by the Bible) and unconstitutionally elevates “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to a protected class under federal law.

Soon after the passage of this law it was revealed that Youtube.com has systematically violated the free speech rights of Christians who have posted videos expressing their biblically based opinions about homosexuality by removing the videos without the owner’s permission.

Over the past several years the U.S. government has been chipping away at the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and is now embarking on campaigns to allow people to be “free from” religion resulting in discrimination against Christians and a violation of their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Just under 400 years ago Pilgrims and Puritans came to America seeking freedom of religion and freedom from government interference with, and control of their religious practices. There is no dispute about the fact that America’s beginnings are deeply rooted in Christian principles and the desire to allow people to exercise their religion, free from government control.

As a testament to how seriously the founding fathers considered freedom of religion, and the necessity to keep government out of religious affairs, one only has to look to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states:

“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.”

The very first right guaranteed to Americans in the very first amendment restricts the government from making any law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of religion. Clearly this is a provision to guarantee that government will not interfere with, or attempt to control, religious practices.

This guarantee of religious freedom from governmental interference and control appears to be of equal importance with freedom of speech (which occupies the second spot in the first amendment). Therefore when people argue that freedom ”of” religion includes freedom “from” religion we should ask ourselves: Does freedom “of” speech include freedom “from” speech? The answer is clearly NO. When you seek to be “free from” something you are necessarily trying to be away from it and stopping it from doing whatever it is doing to you. When you have “freedom of” something you are being inclusive and want to be part of, or with that thing.

People who argue for “freedom from” religion are simply trying to violate the people’s right to speak freely about religion. They are trying to force these people to stop speaking, acting and believing the way they desire. Unfortunately, in a truly free society people often have to listen to, and tolerate what other people do, say and believe. This does not mean you have to agree with it, but you should protect their right to express themselves without interference or control. You even have the equal right to express your difference of opinion, but you don’t have the right to coerce the government to pass laws against it because their speech is already protected by the Constitution.

Arguing that people have the right to be “free from” certain types of religious expressions is similar to saying people have a right to be “free from” whatever principles the Republican Party, or Democratic Party is expressing and have a right to stop those political parties from espousing those principles. You don’t have to agree with what is said/expressed; you don’t even have to listen to it; but in those circumstances when you can’t avoid it; you should tolerate it. This is what sets America apart from totalitarian religious states that punish non believers with death, torture or imprisonment when their citizens disagree with the government’s religious edicts.

It is important to note that there is no language in the first amendment implying that there is any separation, or wall, between the church and the state. In 1789, when the first amendment was ratified, it was probably inconceivable that any government official would not adhere to Christian principles, or would exclude religion from governmental proceedings or government controlled property. This is clearly evident from the American tradition of beginning most governmental proceedings with some type of glorification of God and country, and adorning government buildings with symbols of our Christian heritage. By the words, laws and actions of our founding fathers it should be evident that the intent of the first amendment and of the establishment and free exercise clauses is to “keep government out of religion” rather than to “keep religion out of government”. In other words: to have freedom “of” religion and not freedom” from” religion.

Many people attempt to argue that the first amendment requires a “separation of church and state”, implying that no government entity, or government supported entity, can ever display or utter Christian oriented images or principles, even if purely historical or traditional in nature. In fact, the term “separation of church and state” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The exact phrase is “a wall of separation between church and state” and it first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, in 1801, when Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that their freedom of religion would be protected even though they were encountering persecution from local Congregationalists. In other words, the government would not side with the Congregationalist and interfere with the Baptists; The government would protect the Baptists to worship as they wished. The Congregationalists would not be granted "freedom from religion" and the Baptists would be granted "freedom of religion".

The writings of Thomas Jefferson are often referred to when interpreting freedom of religion issues, because he was not a strong advocate of Christianity. It is also important to remember that he was not even one of the signers of the Constitution, did not take part in original discussions about the First Amendment and his opinions are not controlling. Many writings by Jefferson espouse a strong desire to keep government from intermeddling with religious affairs, but none of his writings indicate a desire to keep religion out of government. Again it appears that even though Jefferson was basically a deist he still supported “freedom of religion” but not “freedom from religion”

In fact, the term “separation of church and state” did not become a legal principle until 1947, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, when Justice Hugo Black wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” His opinion and this statement were arguably based upon a misreading of the Jefferson Danbury Letter, mentioned above.

In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”(2) In other words, freedom “from” religion silences religious speech to the point where only secular speech is permitted. Furthermore, it results in a lack of knowledge about Christianity which will leave people ignorant of a large part of human and American history and ultimately, violates the rights of religious Americans to exercise their religions freely.

Finally, In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains...fundamental flaws...[It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT DEMAND A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.”(3)

People in favor of freedom “from” religion often argue that the “founding fathers” such a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not ”good” Christians and therefore this country is not a country based upon Christian principles. These people miss the point. It wouldn’t matter if these “founding fathers” were Muslim; They understood the principles behind the First Amendment, and knew that it derived from the desire for freedom of religion and freedom of speech as envisioned by the pilgrims and puritans, and that these principles were absolutely necessary to the survival of a truly free state. They all supported the First Amendment and freedom of religion according to its original intent (which did not include freedom “from” religion).

Actually James Madison is usually the founding father referred to as "the father of the Constitution" and Madison was a graduate of Princeton Seminary, and even learned Hebrew in his last year so he could better understand the Old Testament. Madison also authored more than one third of the Federalists Papers which were an attempt to explain the intent behind the Constitution, including the right to freedom of religion. The Federalists Papers make it crystal clear that the founding fathers believed that all law and politics must be based upon the Holy Scriptures and that the first amendment is intended to exclude the government from interferring with religion rather than excluding religion from involvement in politics/government.

Although Jefferson was the most zealous in not supporting Christianity, even he placed his hand on the Holy Bible and swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, “So help me God” when he became president, and he maintained traditional customs of saying prayers at the start of all government activities and approved Christian imagery on government properties. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the primary driver behind allowing the capitol building to be used as a church from 1800 until after World War II (see the Congressional Record for November 1800). The personal diaries of Sentors and Congressmen, of his time, reveal that Jefferson attended church in the capitol building regularly (riding his horse to services every Sunday). These same diaries state that James Madison arrived in a carriage drawn by two white horses, every Sunday, to attend church in the capitol building.

Many "freedom from" religion advocates also argue that George Washington was not a good Christian because he did not attend church regularly. While it may be true that Washington did not attend church every Sunday, the record is clear that Washington was a devout Christian. This is evidenced by the fact that the wall of his tomb in Mt Vernon, that was built according to the wishes expressed by Washington in his will, contains the scriptural verse: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" john 11:25-26. Resurrection of the dead is a key premise of Christianity and Washington was very clear that he wanted to be associated with this premise for eternity by having it emblazoned on his tomb.

If these founding fathers thought the government should be free "from" religion, would they have allowed all these "church centric" governmental activities?

All these men took actions to keep government out of religion, but none of them took actions to keep religion out of government. These “founding fathers” knew that America was a nation built upon Christian principles and that if they attempted to keep religion out of government, the way politicians do today, that they would likely be removed from office with extreme prejudice.

Although Christianity was the predominant religion in the time of the founding fathers, we must understand that the First Amendment is not protecting just the rights of Christians, but the rights of all religious philosophies, believing in God or not. If the government can discriminate against the largest and most populous religion in the world, there is no security for any religion or belief in America.

Recently it has become common for people to claim that it is a violation of their freedom of religion when a cross, the ten commandments or the words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned on government property or on government printed material; however, they are ignoring the fact that these are historical symbols, reminding us of our Christian heritage, and are not attempts to influence people to adhere to, or agree with Christianity. If anything, these symbols should be reminders of the Christians who risked their lives to come to America to establish a system that honors, and upholds freedom to believe, or not believe, in any religion they choose, which includes the right to speak freely about that religion, or deny religion all together.

Arguing that having a cross or the Ten Commandments displayed in a government building is somehow endorsing one religion over another is similar to saying that the Hippocratic oath posted in a hospital is an attempt to ensure that all visitors to the hospital agree with and adhere to the teachings of the Greek healing gods. The Hippocratic Oath is a historic reminder of the principles upon which the medical profession was built. Yes, the Ten Commandments are known for being of Judeo/Christian origin; however they are the historical basics upon which America was founded, and are also excellent principles upon which to base social/legal rules and regulations. Most atheists, and even some criminals, would probably agree with the basic principles of the Ten Commandments: Honor your mother and father, Don’t steal, Don’t lie, Don’t kill, Don’t commit adultery, etc. It appears that just because the Ten Commandments have a Judeo/Christian origin and mention a belief in God, a minority of people, denying the Christian heritage of America, can force the government to abandon the encouragement a display of the Ten Commandments instills in Americans to live by some traditional, historical and universally accepted rules of secular law. The erosion of the Judeo Christian principles in America is leading to a similar erosion of secular rules and regulations.

In the final analysis, Americans should stop whining like spoiled little babies. It is time they accepted the fact that America was built upon Christian principles. It is unfortunate that some people are so defensive and feel threatend by what others say or believe; but America is a country built on the principles of Freedom of speech and freedom of religion and not freedom from speech and freedom from religion. It’s unlikely any other country in the world will put up with selfish whining inspired by a desire to live an ungodly, immoral life. If you are American you are expected to exercise tolerance of the religious beliefs and expressions of others. If you can’t do that you are not a “true” American.

(1), (2) & (3) ADF Alliance Defense Fund Pamphlet: Separation of Church and State, page2.