Gov. Rick Perry: "Religious Freedom Does Not Mean Freedom From Religion.”

Many of us are familiar with the supposed “war on Christmas” narrative that is propagated by theligious right as most notably put forward by those such as Bill O’Reilly, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. However, this narrative is but a surface manifestation of a deeper dialogue that Christianity, and Christians are under attack in America. They are under attack by secularism, by liberals, by the LGBTQ community, by atheists, by nonbelievers, by those that seek to create and flourish in a truly pluralistic and multicultural civil society. A few keys issues in this diatribe can be thought of as prayer in public schools, protecting the LGBTQ community from discrimination, taking the word God off our currency and out of the Pledge of Allegiance, not allowing nativity scenes to be placed on public property and so on and so forth. Whatever side of the argument we as individuals may align; we are all, to some extent, familiar with this dialogue however superficially I just presented it.

This past week, on June 13^th 2013, Governor Rick Perry thought it necessary to sign into law the “Merry Christmas Bill”. Perry said, "People of faith too often feel they can't express their faith publicly. And if they dare display it, they find themselves under attack from individuals and organizations that have nothing to do with them or their communities for that matter."[1] This law, which goes into effect this coming September, is designed to allow religious displays in schools as long as there is more than one religion being represented or if a secular symbol is present. Whether or not this bill is necessary or appropriate is another question. The much more prevalent issue is that Rick Perry, when introducing this bill, said, “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.” This is a heavy statement that requires a bit of unpacking.

Perry’s remarks reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of human rights and what freedom and religion actually means. A distinction I always find myself making when discussing these issues is that of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Could you tell me, off hand, what the difference between the two is? It’s actually quite difficult and requires defining the terms. What do we mean when we say freedom of religion? What does religion actually mean here? Would it be appropriate to say it includes the freedom to find meaning, purpose and joy in our lives? If so, religious organizations, tradition and dogma can become irrelevant to leading a “religious” life. Indeed, many people, especially in the past few decades are choosing to shed religious tradition and myth in favor of something more personally fulfilling whether it be a “spiritual but not religious” orientation, or identifying as a humanist or atheist or nonbeliever. This is not new information. I feel that religion is often used in an unfortunately narrow light. I often ask: “what is more religious than your conscience?” What is more religious than critical thinking? What is more religious than following your reason as far as it can take you? Whether someone is a believer or a nonbeliever, having freedom of conscience is the essence of freedom of religion.

Religious freedom is a narrow term and usually comes with narrow understanding. I prefer the term freedom of conscience as it necessary includes alternative and broader ways of understand religion as a mechanism for finding truth, meaning and purpose. Governor Rick Perry is a victim to a false dichotomy. He is a religious zealot fighting for his team against a false enemy. At the basest level, this man is limiting the religious freedom he is trying so desperately to protect. “Freedom of religion does not protect freedom from religion” is an oxymoron. Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. This is correctly understood by many as a fundamental human right. For example, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) published an op-ed this past January entitled “Government Must Protect Nonbelievers.” In this essay Katrina Lantos Swett the Chair of USCIRF and Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Commissioner of USCIRF, say

While religious freedom is an integral part of our heritage, it also is misunderstood. A key misunderstanding concerns the matter of belief. Simply stated, religious freedom means not only the right to believe, but the freedom to disbelieve — to embrace any religion and to reject every religion. People express their religious freedom by choosing theism, atheism or any other response to ultimate questions. Religious freedom allows them to follow wherever their conscience leads.[2]

Secretary of State John Kerry echoed these remarks this past May. He said,

“Whether it be a single deity, or multiple deities, or no deities at all, freedom to believe —including the freedom not to believe — is a universal human right…But freedom of religion is not an American invention. It’s a universal value. And it’s enshrined in our Constitution and ingrained in every human heart. The freedom to profess and practice one’s faith, to believe or not to believe, or to change one’s beliefs, that is a birthright of every human being.”[3]

Whether it’s Jon Stewart calling it “Bullshit Mountain” or Bill Maher calling it “The Bubble,” Governor Rick Perry certainly lives there. Nonbelievers and secularists, including religious secularists, are continuing to be persecuted for their efforts to create a pluralistic society that protects all people from discrimination. As history has shown the most dangerous forms of discrimination are those that come with the justification of religious dogma and righteousness. Governor Rick Perry’s ignorance and intolerance of human rights and freedom of conscience is a stain upon public policy and a hindrance to the evolution of civil society.

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/rick-perry-freedom-from-religion_n_3441187.html?ir=Religion&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

[2] http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/whats-new-at-uscirf/3918-op-ed-richomnd-times-government-should-protect-nonbelievers-january-22-2013.html

[3] http://occupydemocrats.com/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-freedom-not-to-believe-is-a-universal-human-right/

Government Must Protect Nonbelievers

The following op-ed appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Sunday January 20, 2013.

On Wednesday, the United States observed its annual National Religious Freedom Day. This day commemorates the Virginia General Assembly’s adoption in 1786 of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and celebrates the enshrining of this right in the U.S. Constitution and our country’s culture.

While religious freedom is an integral part of our heritage, it also is misunderstood. A key misunderstanding concerns the matter of belief. Simply stated, religious freedom means not only the right to believe, but the freedom to disbelieve — to embrace any religion and to reject every religion.

People express their religious freedom by choosing theism, atheism or any other response to ultimate questions. Religious freedom allows them to follow wherever their conscience leads.

Through such documents as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, nations around the world have acknowledged on paper that freedom of religion or belief is an inalienable human right.

These documents capture the broad essence of the right, speaking of “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Yet according to a Pew Research study released last August, nearly 75 percent of the world’s population lives in countries in which this fundamental freedom is significantly restricted.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), on which we serve, has found that countries that typically persecute atheists also target members of disfavored or minority religious communities and individuals belonging to majority faiths who dissent from government-sanctioned interpretations.

In a number of nations, disseminating atheist views is specifically prohibited or restricted. Among these countries is Egypt, which USCIRF recommended in 2012 that the State Department add to its list of the world’s worst religious freedom violators. Just last month, Alber Saber was given a three-year jail sentence in Egypt for “offending” religion as a result of administering an atheist Facebook page.

Another such country is Indonesia, which USCIRF continues to monitor due to its permitting serious religious freedom abuses. Last June, Alexander Aan, a 31-year-old civil servant, was sentenced in Indonesia to a 2½-year prison term for creating a Facebook group supporting atheism and posting questions about the existence of a deity and cartoons depicting and insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Both of these cases underscore how states that persecute atheists violate not only freedom of religion or belief, but other precious freedoms, including freedom of expression. They remind us that, in the end, freedom is indivisible. There is no bright line that can be readily drawn in the sand to separate them.

The implication is clear. Those who stand unequivocally for other freedoms, including freedoms of speech and press, association and assembly, also must support religious freedom, just as those who stand for the right of believers to follow their conscience must do the same for nonbelievers.

While history bears stark witness to the persecution of atheists in the name of belief and believers in the name of atheism, the call of conscience requires us to pursue a brighter path of freedom and dignity for all. Thus, as we mark National Religious Freedom Day, we’d do well to recall these wise words from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever ... nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief.”

For believer and skeptic alike, freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief merits our firm support around the world.

Katrina Lantos Swett serves as chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). M. Zuhdi Jasser serves as a USCIRF commissioner. To learn more about the commission, go to uscirf.gov.

American Humanist Association President David Niose

I was privileged to attend this years American Humanist Association (AHA) conference in New Orleans. During this conference the President of AHA, David Niose, gave a short talk about his new book Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans. His talk was very inspirational. I would like to briefly outline some of his main points.

Niose described humanism as not just a movement, but a movement that is a response to the threat and rise of the religious right. He focused on three main themes:

1.     How the religious right has decimated this country and how many are simply unaware of how many problems are directly attributable to the religious right.

2.     Why the opposition to the religious right has been so unsuccessful and ineffective.

3.     How the modern secular movement is providing a successful opposition that if successful, could revert the religious right’s influence back to pre-Reagan levels.

Niose spoke about the infamous “culture wars” that continue to rage. Many on the religious right and even religious moderates still claim and exalt America’s rich religious heritage. They use this as a means to justify Christian predominance and influence in the public square. This, according to Niose, has created a mythology. And this mythology glosses over some terrible truths that seem to have been forgotten.

Many of our initial founders in the new world, namely pilgrims and puritans, actually despised religious pluralism and freedom. They first left England for Holland and then left Holland specifically because it was to open a society for their taste. They came to the new world in order to establish a theocracy. We seem to forget that they would hang Quakers and other Christian denominations simply because they challenged their exclusive claim to truth. And of course let us not forget the Salem Witch Trials, motivated by religious Puritanism.

Many often refer to the great religious revivals in American history. But are these revivals anything to be proud of? The apocalyptic visions they espoused still permeate our religious and unfortunately political discourse to this day (albeit more covert). And of course, they were all infused with an anti-Catholic bigotry.

Niose simply asks us to compare our religious heritage to our secular heritage. Is there anything to be ashamed of in our secular heritage? Our secular heritage was based on the values of the enlightenment. It was based on science and reason. For the first time ever, some people, in some places, under certain circumstances could actually reject Christianity openly without any repercussions. This heritage, more often than not, is never acknowledged. There is nothing in our secular history that is embarrassing, nothing we need to sweep under the rug. Rather, it is something to be proud of. Pop culture has embraced this heritage, has embraced skepticism to a degree. Yet this acknowledgement, Niose says, ends with politics. Seven states (Texas, Maryland, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas and Pennsylvania) still ban atheists from holding public office, despite our federal constitution stipulating otherwise.

The created mythology points out that America is a Christian nation. Many often cite the reference to a “creator” in the Declaration of Independence and the legacy of the pilgrims as being evidence to this heritage. Yet these arguments fail to mention that this was before our nation was actually founded. This was in the colonial era. Our nation was formed by our constitution, which not only has no mention of God or any higher power, but also goes no further than to start saying “We the people…” That is all the authority the required. Those on the religious right also love to be in denial of the famous Treaty of Tripoli that explicitly states, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…” This treaty passed unanimously and there were ZERO vocal objections to its passing. Many state governments, at our nations inception, did have state recognized religions. However, after the constitution was passed and came into effect, every state within two decades disestablished those religions. Our nation, I’m happy to say, is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. In this way it puts all faiths, including those with no faith, as being equal before the law.

Non-Christians now make up around 25% of our total population, more than ever in our history. No public official espouses humanism, or secularism openly. Instead they try and prove to everyone that they are also religious! Nonbelievers will even downplay their non-belief! This not only validates religion but also equates religion with morality. Atheism has become a bad word. It has become a term linked to immorality.

Humanism espouses a belief that human beings can solve human problems without any divine intervention, direction or blessing. Humanism and the religious right are engaged in a battle, a battle for the very consciousness of America. What this boils down to is identity and identity politics. Secular identity can no longer be secondary as it has been in previous generations. It must become primary! Especially if it is to be the one effective force we have against the growing power and influence of the religious right in our politics. The minds of Americans need to be changed so that discrimination against non-believers must end and the religious right can finally be challenged.

The National Day of Reason

This past May 3^rd was the 59^th annual National Day of Prayer (NDP). The National Day of Reason (NDR) started in 2003 in response to the NDP. Because of these two competing and contradictory days, there has been a lot of media attention and coverage of the so-called “culture wars.” The clash of the religious right and the nonbelievers (includes atheists, agnostics, non-theist and secular humanists) continues to rage and has been particularly charged lately in this past election cycle.

It is not news to anyone that we are in the midst of a culture war. I however, do not like to call it a culture war. I call it for what it actually is: a religious war. I label it in this way because the issues of this “culture war” are religious in nature! They are defined by religion, and fought with its corresponding passion and sense of urgency and arrogance. These issues revolve around but are in no way limited to: prayer in public schools, public display of religious symbols such as the ten commandments, homosexuality and domestic partnerships and their corresponding civil rights, abortion, birth control and the so-called evolution/creationism debate. The conversation however, underneath these surface manifestations, has deeper foundations. It is based in a struggle for power and influence in the public square. It goes so deep as to touch on subtle assumptions about human nature and the basis of human morality. In order to stay focused and avoid these complications, however interesting and necessary to discuss they are, I will stick to the surface manifestations, discussing this debate between the NDP and the NDR with only slight injections of their deeper complications.

Lets start with the NDP, then move to the NDR and finish with various voices on both sides on the debate.

All of the information I have gathered is directly from the NDP website: www.nationaldayofprayer.org. The NDP was enacted to “encourage personal repentance and righteousness in the culture.” It is observed in respect of “all people, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status or creed.” Throughout the website, particularly on the sites “about” and “mission” pages, scriptures are listed as reason and justification for this day. They quote Romans 12, Matthew 18, Deuteronomy 6, Proverbs 14, Psalm 133, First Timothy 2 and Mark 12 among many others. But the NDP is not an exclusively Christian event. They claim, “This government-proclaimed day is offered to all American, regardless of religion, to celebrate their faith through prayer. However the efforts of the NDP Task Force are executed specifically in accordance with its Judeo-Christian beliefs.” This day is centered on public acknowledgment of “the need for personal repentance and prayer…”

On their website, they make the common claim from the religious right that the United States is a Christian nation, or at least was “birthed in prayer and in reverence for the God of the Bible.” This is used as a justification for having a federally recognized day of prayer.

The NDP has also received criticism that they are affiliated with Focus on the Family and Family Talk. They deny this claim, saying “Though Mrs. Dobson [chairman of the NDP] is married to Focus on the Family and Family Talk founder Dr. James Dobson, the NDP Task Force is a separate organizations. It was housed at the Focus on the Family headquarters from 1991 to 2009 and is currently located at an independent office in Colorado Spring, CO. Its business affairs have always remained separate and Focus on the Family was compensated fro services rendered. However, between 1991 and 1993, Focus on the Family did provide grants in support of the NDP Task Force. Since then, the Task Force has been completely self-supported.” If you are not familiar with Focus on the Family, Family Talk and Dr. James Dobson, then I suggest you do some research or crawl out of the cave you have been living in. I will not discuss it here past the fact that Focus on the Family advocates for prayer in public schools, is anti-gay in every respect, pro-life, anti-pornography, any pre-marital and extramarital sexual activity and is highly political in nature (Dobson met or spoke with George W. Bush, during his presidency, almost weekly). This should not be surprising that the NDP is an intimate reflection of the religious right and their agenda for dominance in public life. As they say, “Since 1952, the NDP has been a powerful reminder of our need to kneel before God’s throne in the public sphere.”

The National Day of Reason (NDR) started in 2003 as a response to the “persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.” One of the fundamental points of opposition of these two groups can be summed up thusly: That religion and religious liberty and freedom is a private affair. It has no place in public policy or in the governance of a pluralistic populace consisting of many faiths and a growing number of those with no faith.

The NDR opposes the NDP on the following grounds:

1.     The NDP violates the First Amendment. It asks federal and local governments to “set aside tax dollar supported time and space to engage in religious ceremonies.” This is simply government support of religion over no religion.

2.     The NDP has sponsored thousands of events. As they hold these events of the NDP, government officials participate as if they are government endorsed. 

3.     The Supreme Court has stated that state sponsored prayer in schools is “inappropriately exclusionary.” The NDR asks, “Why is a nationally sponsored day of prayer and more inclusive?” A national effort geared toward a percentage of believers should be outside of the government’s abilities/duties/endorsements.

4.     A NDP has the effect of making those who don’t pray feel like second-class citizens. “Why set aside a national day that needlessly excludes?”

5.     Why do religious folk need a federally sponsored day to be reminded to pray? Why limit prayer to a single day in the first place? Government should simply have no voice in saying what Americans should do, especially if it is to engage in a religious practice.

6.     This NDP is focused on a certain form and manifestation of religious engagement. In this way, it gives preference and endorsement of this form of religion in opposition to other religious engagements and nonreligious engagements that may deserve more public support such as civil rights, social justice, peace activism etc.

7.     Many religious groups disagree with public prayer. This state sponsored public display of prayer is thus “a direct affront to such teachings and disrespects countless religious Americans” who do keep their religious life private.

8.     The freedoms of religion and expression are given to all Americans. We can choose to pray or not to pray as we wish. We do not need any government-endorsed program to influence one way or another. There is simply no need for the NDP.

Secular Humanists and all nonbelievers should be generally concerned with the religious right and their political agenda. The NDP is a manifestation of their desire for Christian cultural dominance in public life. It reflects an agenda that transcends this one manifestation. Other areas of concern include, support of faith-based initiatives which “proselytize and employ discriminatory hiring practices”, restricting important scientific research on the basis of religious and so-called moral objections, attempts to include creationism (including “intelligent design”) into public education, the appointment of judges who render decisions on the basis of their private religious beliefs, and lately the religiously motivated restrictions on reproductive rights and information as well as gay marriage, domestic partnership and corresponding civil rights.

Ken Ham, President and CEO of Answers in Genesis USA, is a perfect example of the threat of the religious right. He recently published an article responding to president Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage. His response, I think, embodies the threat the religious right poses in these and other areas. Ham is a “Young-Earth” Creationist. He believes in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and denies evolution.

Obama said his view on gay marriage has “evolved”. For Ham, and many religious people, morals do not evolve or change. Morals are absolute and are given by God. Of course, this means the Christian God. Naturally. This idea is a really interesting and dangerous idea that I have written about extensively, especially in previous blog posts concerning Richard Dawkins, Rodney Stark and Ken Wilber. If you do not believe in absolute morality, then what sort of moral reasoning or guidance can you possibly have? Or as Ham says, “how does an atheist or agnostic determine what is ‘good’”? Ham thinks there is only one way to determine what is “good” and that “is from the absolute authority who is all ‘good’ – God!” Despite the simple denial of the human-made nature of religion and the arrogance to presume to have exclusive knowledge of God and God’s will, as I discussed with Brian Kimball in a previous post, this position asserts that nonbelievers are morally inferior, and that those of other religious faiths are either morally misguided or morally wrong.

Ham’s worldview is black and white. If you abandon this Christian absolute standard of morality, “we will see people doing what is right in their own eyes.” This, he says, is what we are experiencing in U.S. public policy. He says, “The recent announcement by the president of the USA in support of ‘gay’ marriage is just one such example—he abandoned the absolute standard for what is ‘good’ and now is wanting to impose his subjective opinion on the nation.” There is no acknowledgement that his subjective religious version of absolute morality is not imposed on others. It can’t be because it’s not subjective. This is objective truth. And as such, is justified in being coerced onto others. God’s word, Ham says, is being replaced. It is being replaced with “man’s word.” Our national religion, he says, is changing “from Christianity to secular humanism.” Secular humanism, first of all, is not a religion. Secondly, he views it as being fundamentally at odds with his version of Christian values, which are of course, the only correct values to have. As such, these values must be the values that form the basis of public policy. These are the values that should guide our politicians. As the NDP website says, we must “mobilize the Christian community to intercede for America’s leaders and its families.”

I’ll close with a quote from President Barak Obama. Speaking on the issue of contraceptives, he said, “No, you cants deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your ‘religious freedom’. If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.” Likewise, a Christian majority, cannot force their version of morality onto others just because they think they have exclusive access to the absolute truth. No minority, especially nonbelievers should have their rights subject to the passions and sentiments of the majority. The NDP is a clear breach of the First Amendment and is a symbol of the religious rights war on anyone who disagrees with them. As such, I celebrate the National Day of Reason!

Texas - One State Under God

Texas has a new license plate. It features the three Crosses at Calvary and says "One State Under God."
These license plates are made to benefit a Christian ministry in East Texas. Opponents of the plate claim, and rightfully so, that this is a clear and blatant government endorsement of religion. Advocates, however, claim that this is an expression of religious speech protected under the first amendment. The DMV is a public institution. It is completely facilitated by the state. Of course we have the protection of free speech which includes the expression of religious speech. If people wanted to express their religious free speech with the various automobiles, they can use bumper stickers, which many do. Using a license plate, given by the state and for state purposes is a clear violation of separation of church and state. In addition, having the proceeds go to a religious organization makes it even more transparent. The state cannot sponsor a religious organization. Period.