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.]
