National Dogma (or, Religious Freedom and the War on Non-Believers)

Modern America contains a plethora of religious beliefs and attitudes, most represented through various centers of worship, organizations and lobbyists/politicians. We owe this particular freedom to the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's the 'freedom of religion' card that nearly everyone employs to protect their individual practices, to include the agnostic and atheistic views of 'non-belief/non-practice."

In respects to the Christian population and, most notably, the near-militant Christian Right, it can be reasonably assumed the initial implications of the Establishment Clause was to protect those of Protestant faiths who had suffered a great deal of persecution from the European Catholic entities. Perhaps it was left unstated as a 'spirit of the law' concept; however, it was not implicitly stated, which allows for the protection of most religious practices and anti-religious beliefs.

For a moment, let's look at what it means that 'most' religious practices are protected. In 1879, the Supreme Court dealt with Reynolds vs. The United States, concerning the Federal prohibition against polygamy. The Supreme Court upheld the law, stating, in short, that while the government cannot create laws that prohibit religious beliefs or opinions, there will be neutral laws that interfere with practices. It was a decision made to uphold the laws concerning the welfare of the population as a whole, effectively disallowing extremist practicies and rituals that could endanger others. Later, in both 1990 and 1997, the Supreme Court upheld state laws the prohibited the use of drugs and allowed for drug-testing of State employees when confronted with the use of peyote in religious rituals (in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which had, effectively, nullified the 1990 ruling. The Supreme Court's 1997 decision revived the previous precedent and claimed Congress' act of attempting to interpret the Constitution as stepping outside their bounds).

So, not everyone is afforded full freedom of religious expression, depending on rites and rituals conflicting with local and Federal laws. We accept that it isn't entirely plausible to allow for every religion to engage in practices that could cause harm to others. However, we currently have no laws or regulations in place that prevent prejudicial actions against those in the questioning or non-belief mentalities. Certainly, those practices are protected under the First Amendment, but we do live in a primarily Christian nation, which does nullify that protection to some degree.

The idea of 'religious freedom' is now utilized as 'the freedom to express disdain and displeasure' with a theological mindset that is different and in the minority. Support a cause that disrupts the strength of the church in government affairs and you find yourself labeled as a 'radical'. Christian groups have any gone as far as to produce ad campaigns stating "Why do Atheists Hate America?", declaring those who choose not to accept belief or faith as 'un-American' or 'un-patriotic'. In most situations, their statements could be considered as libel and slander, but no one challenges them.

There is a bit of a paradox in the Christian political agenda. They want creationism and prayer in school, which I honestly support. Creationism should be allowed as an elective course for Christians and prayer as religious practice shouldn't be disallowed. However, neither should be mandatory, which is what they desire. Likewise, they will fight tooth and nail to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it's mandatory inclusion causes a source of friction amongst believers of other faiths and non-believers alike. They want their religious freedoms, but will refuse to allow others their own.

To a degree, it's a climate of fear. Between sin, eternal damnation and any denial of entry to Heaven, churches control their congregations through subtley implied fear. As such, those belief or non-belief systems that stand in contradiction to Christian teachings inspire a distaste or even hatred born from that fear.

In respects, not all Christians follow this pattern. I have Christian friends who experience very strong faith, yet are still accepting, if not entirely understanding, of a decision to actively not believe. There are churches who preach acceptance and patience in regards to those of the non-belief sect. I respect these individuals for not involving themselves in the viscious cycle of religious antagonism.

My recent post on my own agnosticism and Chris Berry's on his admitted atheism gave rise to this entry. We represent the minorities in the faith/non-faith fields and, as such, have the potential to face extreme prejudice based on the fact that we do not conform to any sort of 'rational' belief system. We do not always experience the freedom to express ourselves without the consequence of being judged poorly by others.

Why should we be any different? Do we not deserve the same rights extended to others under the First Amendment?