Recently in our METS New Visions class we had a speaker who talked to us about the persecution of the Falun Dafa group in China (it's a very interesting subject, and I would encourage you to do your own research into the matter). Our speaker got me thinking about the state of religious freedom in America. For example, one of the first things that occurred to me is what exactly is a religion? How do we legally define a religion? The current US, and International Laws aren't very clear (I refer you to the Harvard Journal of Human Rights http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml). We know that in America we have Freedom of Religion, but does this mean that to be protected by this particular clause that you have to have a religion, or does this also protect non-belief? What about the non-religious? I think the problem lies in the wording of said clause. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." The only problem is that Founding Fathers left no indication of how this clause was to be executed. They left behind no defining characteristics of a religion to help guide us, nor whether this also meant that those who do not believe in a higher power should be able to enjoy the same protections as those who do. I think, however, that in a country in which 20% of it's citizens view themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-religious (that's 60,000,000 people to put this in perspective http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=281&article=0) that we need a clearer idea of who exactly is being protected by the First Amendment. I think that we need to clarify the Freedom of Religion clause to be a Freedom of Belief clause. This would mean that you can believe, or not believe in any crazy crap you want, and that the government will protect your right to believe in it.
I think what I would like most would be an actual amendment to the clause (not a true amendment but a re-wording if you will). I also understand, however, that such an action would most likely be resented by the general populace and would also take up valuable time which could be better spent elsewhere. So, in a realistic sense the best I think I can hope for is for the Supreme Court to set a precedent in which the Freedom of Religion clause is interpreted as more of a Freedom of Belief clause. I know that to many this would seem to be a non-issue. Most would say, "What's the big deal? Clearly atheists, agnostics, etc. etc. deserve the same rights as any other group, and they are protected by the First Amendment," and I would agree. I personally believe that atheists are protected under the First Amendment, and that the Founding Fathers intended it that way. But we are also living in a nation in which atheists are the most distrusted of all groups (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/) I don't think it's unreasonable to wish for a little more security. I feel I should let the reader know that I myself am an atheist so I'm not just making this up as I go along.
Now, I would like to expand upon what I believe about government intervention in religious affairs. As I've stated I believe that every person is entitled to his or her own beliefs, but within reason. What I mean is that I believe a person should be allowed to do what ever they wish as long as they are not harming others. Now when I apply this to a religious group what I mean is say the group doesn't believe in modern medicine and they allow a child (who can't choose his own medical care) to die then that group should be held responsible. On the other hand if a group believes that suicide is perfectly reasonable and a person in the group (who is of sound mind) chooses to end their life then I see nothing wrong with this. In the first case I believe it is the job of the government to protect the child, and I in the second I believe it is the job of the government to protect the person's right to end their own life. I say this because clearly if we look at China's persecution of the Falun Dafa then we see an example of a country's government going to far, but I also feel that religions shouldn't be allowed to run wild and do whatever they wish.
I feel now that I must state that personally I've never had any run-ins with persecution. I've never been discriminated against for my beliefs and I've never seen anybody be persecuted personally. Relatively speaking, I've led a really easy life. So, instead, all I can do is observe the world around me and form conclusions based on those observations. And some of the things I've observed are troubling. For example, I look at China, and I see that they're able to persecute a group (in this case the Falun Dafa) and be able to get away with simply because of how powerful they are. Or, I look at America and I can see the hate that a lot of people are filled with (for example watch this video of a man walking through a health care protest with a sign which merely states a view opposing that of the protestors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc ). In a world where persecution is a very real threat I don't think that security is an unreasonable desire.
Miguel, i believe the point Matt was attempting to make was not that morals (and therefor religion) should not affect political decisions, but that church should be completely separated from traditional proceedings etc. For example god should be removed from the pledge of allegiance, there should be no "nondenominational" prayer at a political dinner and so on. I agree with this. As Matt says the constitution should not only protect those practicing a religion but also Atheists, agnostic and other less common religions. A "nondenominational prayer" therefor does not satisfy, nondenominational prayers do not consider nonbelievers or those who do not believe in the traditional "creator"
ReplyDeleteYou advance a facinating arguement in this piece. To partially address your point regarding the vagueness of the defination of religion in US and international law, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is intrpreted to allow for atheism or other non-religious beliefs, as without this, the USSR and other Communitst Block nations would not have signed. As for the bill of rights, the constitution and the bill of rights often employs relatively vague in order to to avoid the intrepretation that the rights listed within are not the only rights granted to US citizens. That being said, your arguement is generally well put together and logical arguement, though I disagree that an additional amendment is needed, for the reasons stated above. You have a number of sources that support your arguements well. I do however have one question for you, you stated that you believe China has gone to far in its persecution of Falun Dafa, what if anything do you believe should the International Community should do?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting digression on the topic of Falun Dafa persecution. You suggest that further legislation is necessary to protect freedoms, but doesn't legislation also limit freedom? Is there some merit to leaving room for interpretation?
ReplyDeleteI suggest that you may want to clarify your last paragraph, as well; you state both that you have no experience with persecution and that persecution is a real threat. While I understand your point, that persecution exists in the world, it reads somewhat as if you are arguing both sides of the same case.
I think you do present a well reasoned argument all around. But I want to change your perspective for a moment. Since your an atheist it may be hard for you to really get a good point of view on the mixing of religion and politics. For example, you say we all have the right to our own beliefs, however, we shouldn't let that interfere or harm others.
ReplyDeleteWhat if your religion, or your beliefs, demand that you save as many people as you can from damnation and lead them to salvation? How should politics play a role, should it be up to the majority to decide? What if the opinion of the majority disagrees with your current one?
I personally agree with you all the way. We're all people and should all be able to make our own decisions for ourselves (without harming others). The government should support that. But if you, or I, were devoted to a specific faith then what would be the case?