What Has Happened to Religious Freedom?

One of the unique things about the United States of America, and specifically about the constitution of same has been the freedoms guaranteed to the citizens by the first 10 amendments to the constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Of all of these, the most well known, and the most controversial of all these rights is the first amendment; which guarantees the freedom of religion, expression, the press, and the right for peaceful assembly.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since our country is made up of people of diverse backgrounds, ethnic roots, ideologies, and religions, the balance between the rights of one group, and the rights of another group sometimes collide. Anyone who states a strongly held opinion, fact, or “truth” from one ideological camp is sure to offend people of the opposing camp. According to the first amendment, this is our most closely held civil right.

In a perfect world, everyone would understand that these differences are part of what makes us a strong nation. Nobody becomes strong without struggle. An athlete, who wishes to win, must suffer and sweat in order to win the prize. Likewise, an intellectual who wishes to win the debate on whatever opinion or ideology that they hold must suffer and sweat. Without suffering to refine and solidify their arguments, they will never win anyone to their side.

In the field of politics, we have somehow managed to replace intellectual suffering with ridicule. Those who wish to make their case stronger do so by making the other side look inept, unreasonable, old-fashioned, negative or even destructive to society.

Even the terminology that the press has assigned to various political factions or viewpoints reflects this idea of ridicule. Those with a right-wing political stance are called “radical conservatives;” while those on the left are “progressive liberals.” While the term “progressive liberals” at least makes sense; “radical conservative” is a true oxymoron. Conservatism by its very nature is the antithesis of radical. The danger in this manner of expression is that as people encounter these two terms in the press one comes across as positive, while the other carries a clear negative connotation.

Unfortunately, these terms stick in people’s heads, and affect the way that they interpret the viewpoints expressed by the opposing factions. In such cases, the “politically correct” viewpoint comes out on top.

At the time that our constitution was drafted, the “politically correct” viewpoint was the Judeo-Christian ethic found in the Holy Bible. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, only 2 were not practicing Christians. Somehow, in the liberal desire to separate church and state, that historical fact has been brushed under the carpet.

However, in more recent times, the Judeo-Christian ethic has been replaced by the liberal ethic. Liberalism seeks freedom from tradition and authority; defining “truth,” “ethics” and “morality” as every-changing terms, adapted to suit the times. What is true today may not be true tomorrow; depending on what “science” decides is truth. Morality and ethics are constantly adapted to suit prevailing ideas and ideologies.

One of the ways that liberalism is seeking to assert its control over our society is by gradually chipping away at the rights of conservatives to express their opinions. To the liberals it may not seem that way; they are only working to make things “fair.” But to those whose rights are being restricted, in favor of other’s rights, each tiny change is a major blow against our freedom.

I recently encountered a posting on facebook by a liberal which stated, “Preachers should not be allowed to use their position to state their political beliefs.” This was stated as a reaction to a preacher who had spoken out against a prevailing liberal point of view.

First of all, let me state that if it wasn’t for preachers, this person would not have had the right to make that statement. In the England of yesteryear, a statement like that could very easily see one imprisoned; because the England which the United States of America broke away from in the Revolutionary War did not allow freedom of expression. The revolution which gave them the freedom to express themselves was fueled by preachers who used their pulpits to speak on the necessity of freedom for all.

Why should we single out preachers as a group that should not be allowed to express their opinion? Isn’t that the same as taking away their first amendment rights? Even more, isn’t that taking away their livelihood? If we are going to take those rights away from preachers, then we should take them away from news reporters, actors, politicians, artists and actors as well. Each of these professions is an expression of the individual’s interpretation of the world around them.

There is no moment in time where a preacher stops being a preacher. When an accountant leaves his office, he is known by his name, not as an accountant; likewise for a truck driver, factory worker, engineer, or many other fields. However, a preacher is a preacher 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He doesn’t have the option of “laying down” his position for a “private” life.

Fine art is an interpretation by the artist of the world around them. The most progressive practitioners of this expression are often making a political or social comment in their artwork. If we take away their right to make those statements, we remove the essence of what motivates them to create. Art is then reduced to expression without meaning, or meaning so simple that it might as well be created by a child coloring with a box of crayons.

Much of the conservative commentary propagated in our society is that which is expressed by Christian preachers. Restricting their first amendment rights is the same as eliminating conservative expression in public forums. Isn’t that the same as eliminating all competition against liberalism? Maybe that’s what these people are really after.

The freedom of speech that these liberal politicians are attacking was given to them by people who believed the Bible, and believed that the God of the Bible had given them the right to express their opinion. In other words, if it wasn’t for God, they would have a right to attack those who speak of Him.