Freedom of Religion in the U.S.

Religion is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution.  The final provision of Article VI states, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  The First Amendment, which lists basic rights of the people, begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”  And the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868 after the end of the Civil War, extended the protections granted under the Constitution to the states.  “… [N]or shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Like every other right guaranteed in the Constitution, freedom of religion is not absolute.  Over the years courts have been called on to mediate between conflicting claims, and Congress and state legislators have seen the need to define and amplify or restrict the way freedom of religion is applied in specific instances.  In some cases accommodation is made in favor of religion, such as the granting of conscientious objector status to those who do not believe in participating in armed conflict and the exemption of the Amish from the requirement that young people receive formal education to age 16.  In other cases such accommodations have been denied.  Some examples of the latter are the requirement imposed on the Mormons of Utah to abandon the practice of polygamy before Utah was granted statehood, and the jailing of Schwartzentruber Amish elders for failure to comply with septic system ordinances.

I Believe

“I Believe” is an inspirational popular song from the 1950s that managed to express faith without evoking any particular religion.  Frankie Laine took it to the top of the U.K. charts for 18 weeks in 1953, and artists as diverse as Mahalia Jackson, Perry Como, Tammy Wynette, and Elvis Presley produced recordings of it in the following years.  Based on the number of versions posted on YouTube, I conclude that it is still well known and loved more than sixty years after its first release.

I found myself thinking of this song, even humming it quietly to myself, as I read numerous news articles and commentary about the suits involving Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby which were argued in front of the Supreme Court last week.  Clearly the suits are about belief, and how beliefs drive action.  But the more I read, the more I realized that “I believe” can have a number of different meanings and different kinds of meaning, both religious and nonreligious.

Religious Freedom

There is good evidence that the first Shatto (Château) immigrants to North America represented a mixed marriage.  Jean Nicol was Protestant, perhaps Huguenot, and his wife Eva Maria appears to have been Roman Catholic.  Assuming this was indeed the case, it would provide one reason for their choosing Philadelphia as their destination.  Founded by Quaker William Penn on the principle of religious freedom, Pennsylvania was long a refuge for those fleeing religious persecution.  In 1739 it would have been one of the few places where the young couple could live and rear their children without fear of harassment.

More than a half century later, freedom of religion was codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the newly formed United States of America.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”  In the centuries since that amendment was ratified in 1791, numerous court and legislative battles have been fought over just what it means and how it is to be applied in daily life.  There is a constant effort to find balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the state in securing the common welfare.

Sikhism

 

In light of the mass killing at a Sikh temple earlier today (08/05/2012), I am posting this article with hope that it may provide readers with basic information about a religion which is not well known in the United States. With more than twenty-seven million adherents worldwide, Sikhism is the fifth largest religious group. Recent estimates place the U.S. population of Sikhs at somewhere between 500,000 and 700,000, with approximately 20% of the total living in California.  (Population figures are difficult to obtain because the U.S. census does not disaggregate Sikhs as a separate religious or ethnic group.)

Sikhism is a relative newcomer to world religious practice, having been founded by Guru Nanak Dev in the latter part of the fifteenth century.  Born into a Hindu family in 1469, Guru Nanak early exhibited a deep interest in and gift for the spiritual life.  As a young man tending his family’s herd of cattle, he engaged both Hindu and Muslim holy men of the area in deep spiritual discussion.  After his marriage at the age of 16 and the birth of his two sons, he was employed as an accountant but spent many hours of the evenings and early mornings in meditation and hymn singing.  In the latter he was accompanied by a childhood Muslim friend who played the rahab, a stringed instrument.

Criminalizing the Teaching of Non-Violence

In June 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that a portion of the US Patriot Act prohibiting the provision of “material support” to designated terrorist organizations includes training in non-violence by humanitarian aid workers.  The specific case which prompted the ruling was Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP).  HLP had sought to provide training in human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey, a small group which the US government has listed as a terrorist organization.

This ruling is, in effect if not in intent, profoundly anti-Christian.  First, it criminalizes the speech and actions of those who attempt to follow Jesus’ clear examples and teachings about how we are to relate to our enemies.  And second, it denies the possibility of repentance and conversion on the part of those to whom such training would be provided.  Ironically, two of the three dissenting justices are the two non-Christians now seated on the Supreme Court.  It appears that some of our Jewish brothers and sisters have a better understanding of “the things that make for peace” (Luke 19:42) than do most of the Christian members of our highest court.

First Amendment Challenge

During the months leading up to this year’s general elections, one of the races that I followed with particular interest was the one for governor of Hawaii.  The Republican nominee, Lieutenant Governor James “Duke” Aiona, is closely identified with the International Transformation Network (ITN), an extremely conservative Charismatic Evangelical Christian organization which is aligned with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement.  A win for Aiona could have set the stage for a serious challenge to the First Amendment rights of the citizens of our western-most state, fewer than half of whom are Christian.

The ITN and NAR advocate a brand of Christianity which falls under the general term “Dominionist.”  That is, they seek to place their adherents in positions of power in all areas of society, including business, education, culture, and government.  The ultimate goal is to transform a multi-cultural, democratic society where minorities enjoy constitutional protection and religious freedom into a theocracy in which divergent beliefs are marginalized or eliminated.