OBAMA TO AMERICA: WHERE IS YR GOD NOW?
Jan. 11th, 2012 10:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogYr Obama-Hates-American-Jesus lede of the day:
As a professional journalist, headlines like that drive me bonkers – not just because NPR should know better than to use a question for a headline, but because they should know better than to use a silly question to which any sensible person knows the answer.
Which is: no.
Still, the article raises some interesting points about the perceptions behind the War On Religion meme – such as the tendency of Christian conservative politicians and pundits to drastically overstate the problem.
The ongoing meme here is that things like gay marriage, Planned Parenthood funding and not letting Christian kids bully gay kids amount to a “war” on religious freedom because religious people (by which they mean “Judeo-Christians”, really) have a First Amendment right to practice their religion openly and freely, which means (1) this right trumps the Law Of The Land, and (2) anyone who says otherwise in any way whatsoever is actively and maliciously out to take away yr 1A rights and destroy yr religion.
Or, as Bishop William Lori tells NPR, the First Amendment means the government “cannot make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith.”
Well, no, Bishop, actually it can. The 1A isn’t absolute when it comes to free speech (libel, slander, inciting a riot, obscenity, etc), and it’s not absolute when it comes to religion either – that’s why Mormons can’t be polygamous, Dominionists can’t legally stone adulterers to death and you can’t use peyote for religious rituals.
That’s not to say you have to agree with those limitations. (Hey, I don’t think obscenity or polygamy should be exempt from the 1A, provided everyone involved is consenting.) But the point is that the right to freedom of religion (or free speech, as far as that goes) isn’t an automatic blank cheque to do whatever you want – as such, the Law Of The Land is under no obligation to mirror your particular doctrine.
For my money, the core problem in the current debate is this:
All major religions forbid their followers to do certain things by nature. In a land like the US where freedom from religious tyranny was one of the chief reasons for declaring independence from the crown in the first place, that creates a dilemma – how do you guarantee 100% religious liberty when certain religious people have a tendency to use that liberty to take away other people’s liberties, particularly when the role of govt is to protect the liberties of everyone (not just the religious people), especially in a sectarian polytheistic society?
The answer: you can’t. The govt has to balance everyone’s interests as much as possible, and that requires being as non-partisan as possible. Which is why Newt Gingrich can complain about secular govt until he’s blue in the face – the fact remains that a Judeo-Christian govt would give priority to the liberties and religious freedoms of Judeo-Christians, at the expense of everyone else if and when necessary (or dictated by God). A secular, impartial govt has a better chance of striking that balance, albeit the risk of pissing off all factions – or at least factions that insist on an all-or-nothing deal.
Sadly, that’s the world we live in now, where political factions are increasingly unable to stomach the idea that other factions might get their way even a little on even a single issue. That’s how we end up with the logical fallacy that if I disagree with you, I’m basically declaring a full-out war on yr right to have a different opinion than me. (See: The Bill O’Reilly Free Speech Defense)
I do get that religious people think it’s unfair to ask them to sell out on their moral convictions wholesale. On the other hand, I don’t really think that’s what’s being asked of them, for the most part – unless the moral conviction in question is that God wants them to stop other people from violating those morals via legislation, in which case, see above.
But then I don’t have any particular sympathy for religious people who argue for the religious freedom to use their religious freedom to take away other people’s freedom, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
You can’t always get what you want,
This is dF
As a professional journalist, headlines like that drive me bonkers – not just because NPR should know better than to use a question for a headline, but because they should know better than to use a silly question to which any sensible person knows the answer.
Which is: no.
Still, the article raises some interesting points about the perceptions behind the War On Religion meme – such as the tendency of Christian conservative politicians and pundits to drastically overstate the problem.
The ongoing meme here is that things like gay marriage, Planned Parenthood funding and not letting Christian kids bully gay kids amount to a “war” on religious freedom because religious people (by which they mean “Judeo-Christians”, really) have a First Amendment right to practice their religion openly and freely, which means (1) this right trumps the Law Of The Land, and (2) anyone who says otherwise in any way whatsoever is actively and maliciously out to take away yr 1A rights and destroy yr religion.
Or, as Bishop William Lori tells NPR, the First Amendment means the government “cannot make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith.”
Well, no, Bishop, actually it can. The 1A isn’t absolute when it comes to free speech (libel, slander, inciting a riot, obscenity, etc), and it’s not absolute when it comes to religion either – that’s why Mormons can’t be polygamous, Dominionists can’t legally stone adulterers to death and you can’t use peyote for religious rituals.
That’s not to say you have to agree with those limitations. (Hey, I don’t think obscenity or polygamy should be exempt from the 1A, provided everyone involved is consenting.) But the point is that the right to freedom of religion (or free speech, as far as that goes) isn’t an automatic blank cheque to do whatever you want – as such, the Law Of The Land is under no obligation to mirror your particular doctrine.
For my money, the core problem in the current debate is this:
All major religions forbid their followers to do certain things by nature. In a land like the US where freedom from religious tyranny was one of the chief reasons for declaring independence from the crown in the first place, that creates a dilemma – how do you guarantee 100% religious liberty when certain religious people have a tendency to use that liberty to take away other people’s liberties, particularly when the role of govt is to protect the liberties of everyone (not just the religious people), especially in a sectarian polytheistic society?
The answer: you can’t. The govt has to balance everyone’s interests as much as possible, and that requires being as non-partisan as possible. Which is why Newt Gingrich can complain about secular govt until he’s blue in the face – the fact remains that a Judeo-Christian govt would give priority to the liberties and religious freedoms of Judeo-Christians, at the expense of everyone else if and when necessary (or dictated by God). A secular, impartial govt has a better chance of striking that balance, albeit the risk of pissing off all factions – or at least factions that insist on an all-or-nothing deal.
Sadly, that’s the world we live in now, where political factions are increasingly unable to stomach the idea that other factions might get their way even a little on even a single issue. That’s how we end up with the logical fallacy that if I disagree with you, I’m basically declaring a full-out war on yr right to have a different opinion than me. (See: The Bill O’Reilly Free Speech Defense)
I do get that religious people think it’s unfair to ask them to sell out on their moral convictions wholesale. On the other hand, I don’t really think that’s what’s being asked of them, for the most part – unless the moral conviction in question is that God wants them to stop other people from violating those morals via legislation, in which case, see above.
But then I don’t have any particular sympathy for religious people who argue for the religious freedom to use their religious freedom to take away other people’s freedom, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
You can’t always get what you want,
This is dF
