The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads (in pertinent part):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This has, historically, been interpreted to include other official acts by the government. Here, “Congress” is read (due to the context of the other Amendments, which I will not get into here) to mean “the government, including both the federal government and the State governments (with ‘State government’ including all smaller governments including municipal, county, &c.)”. This understanding the word “Congress” has been a long time in the making. The other words in this clause (often called “the Establishment Clause”) seem straightforward: “no law”, “establishment”, and “religion”.
Unfortunately, there is now a movement to redefine the most important word of the Establishment Clause in a much narrower fashion.
Already, there are religionists who claim that “freedom of religion is not freedom from religion” and work toward the end of establishing their own religion (often some form of Christianity). What this means is often that public prayer should be allowed (since all religions pray) and that missionary work has a place in the classroom (since students are free to be a different religion but not free to be atheists).
Now, this is proving insufficient for some groups.
[T]he word “religion” has a meaning today that was not the
meaning the Founders […] the word “religion” in the Religion Clauses means monotheism.
Whaaaaa? Well, that wipes out Catholicism (frequently touted by Protestants to be a tritheistic or even goddess-worshipping faith), Buddhism (which is an non-theistic faith), all forms of polytheism, pantheism, bitheism and, yes, atheism. Jewish believers could make the case that Christianity is polytheistic (if Jesus is God, that makes two!). Islamic believers could make the case that they are the only true monotheistic faith (their belief requires subscription to the statement “There is only one God: God.”). I wonder if pagans who only worship one god (lets say…Loki, since I see His hand in all this) could make the case that they were true monotheists. Does this also exclude all goddess worshipers (since “theology” is often distinguished, in goddess circles, from “thealogy”)? What about deists? Are they the “right” kind of monotheists? Are Mormons?
It is one thing to allow freedom of conscience to all. It is another to trust atheists to testify at trial or hold office.
This extremely narrow definition of “religion” has enormous and far-reaching impacts outside of the case this amicus brief was filed in. (A matter brought by a pagan chaplain who was rejected from a position as a chaplain at a California jail because he was not a chaplain in one of the jail’s five officially-recognized faiths.) The amicus brief is worth the read (it’s not filled with legalese) for anyone who (a) is not a monotheist, (b) is concerned with freedom of religion in this country, or (c) is concerned with equality in this country. Religionists (and most often, they are Christian religionists) are out to take your rights away. And “you” is everyone who is not the exact right kind of Christian in the minds of these religionists.
[Hat tip to the Wild Hunt Blog, a wonderful pagan news source. I've often noted that I'm maybe half atheist and half pagan—the Wild Hunt is one of the best sources for information on free exercise as it pertains to non-Christians. Jason at Wild Hunt has been tracking this story with Is The First Amendment for Monotheists Only? and A Few Updates and Announcements.]
8 responses so far ↓
1 xJane // Feb 2, 2010 at 4:30 pm
a scary little addendum to this that a friend just brought to my attention: Christian America seeks to add an amendment that reads as follows:
2 John // Feb 2, 2010 at 5:46 pm
xJane, great analysis–I’ve long hoped you would bring your legal training to bear on our favorite topics here at Mind on Fire. Thanks!
On a practical note, how seriously should we take this threat? How credible is the threat to our civil liberties from this particular angle, from these particular groups? The few cases that have come up before the Roberts court have leaned in favor of less separation, right?
While indeed scary, I don’t consider the addendum in comment #1 to have any chance of success, especially as the nation’s religious demographics are predicted diversify greatly in the coming years (I’m not saying this radical minority isn’t strong, just not strong enough to pass a constitutional amendment).
3 Th. // Feb 2, 2010 at 5:52 pm
.
Yeah, that won’t stick. I can’t even pretend to try to worry about that.
4 xJane // Feb 2, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I don’t think the amendment is much to worry about.
I do think that this case is something to worry about/watch. Just like the “small” anti-choice amendments and cases are slowly chipping away at Roe and so, while each is not “a serious threat”, they fly under the radar until we wake up one morning and someone’s advocating criminalizing miscarriages. And just as I believe that there is a portion of our society which wants to see Roe overturned, I also believe that there is a portion of our society which wants to see all non-Christians as second-class citizens (in one way or another) and I see this case as one of those small nails in that coffin.
5 John // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I am grateful that you highlighted these cases. My concern is strategic deployment of effort and attention in the broad front that is the war on our first amendment rights. My focus is so divided among so many issues that I want to maximize its efficacy, and this probably goes for many in our info-overload world who want to protect their rights. So I’m curious about the situation in general, and where these cases fit into the big picture. Maybe something for the both of us to explore in the near future?
6 Tom Hepner // Feb 3, 2010 at 11:36 am
Good stuff as usual. Some footnotes would be nice though.
Cheers
7 xJane // Feb 4, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I was just listening to Atheists Talk, the podcast of Minnesota Atheists. The particular episode (in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2—iTunes links) was a book review of the Age of American Unreason, by Susan Jacoby [http://cmp.ly/5]. In it, according to the podcast, she posits that the reason that America is so religious while Europe is so secular is that Europe had institutionalized religion (that is, no separation of church and state), which caused its citizenry to critically doubt and question both their religion and their government in healthy and productive ways. By contrast, since America has maintained this fiction of separation, we have not had a chance to closely analyze our national religion in the same way. An interesting argument in light of the above—perhaps it is in the best interest of future American atheists(™) to allow the Christian right to install their religion in the government so that it can die the death it is due and we can then move forward as a country.
Tom: The convention in blogs, as opposed to academic papers or legal journals, is toward linking, rather than footnoting. Further, with regard to the convention of linking in blogs, a blogger must take into account whether or not the reader will actually follow the link and whether following the link will add or detract from the message being sent. Also, sometimes I’m just lazy. As to the source of the quotes, all were taken from the amicus brief that I linked to above. Everything else may fairly be taken as bold assertions made by me based on my experience and personal viewpoint.
8 xJane // Feb 23, 2010 at 11:41 am
In similar news, Obama’s administration has taken to using “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion”, which is either “troubling” or a “warm and fuzzy” piece of rhetoric that has no greater meaning.
Still worth taking note of: Why “Freedom of Worship” Is Not Enough. (via. The few comments at this blog are worth reading)
Leave a Comment