What is Left of our Civil Rights? - 1.1 - Freedom of Religion

The Bill of Rights and what is left of it.

Amendment I - 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.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

However much I may disapprove of many of the religions we practice here in the United States, and disapprove more of religions that seem isolationist or extremist, it is not my place to control the beliefs of others. That is one of the things that Americans supposedly take pride in: religious freedom. This isn't always true though, because there seems to be a growing desire for people to have freedom of their own religion, and then to deny that freedom to other people.

Acquiring valid religious statistics that are not biased has become more difficult because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer collects that information ("Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion.") This like many things recently results from a confusion people have in reading the Bill of Rights. The freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion.

Separation of Church and State is vital, but not the the point that we are simply trying to wipe out all visible signs of religion within our society. I may dislike the fact that our country was founded by Puritans, but there our roots lie, whether we like it or not, and to ignore that is to ignore what we came from. The problem is that the two, like many other things in our constitution can contradict each other if not clearly defined. The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent large religious organizations from controlling the government the way Catholicism and the Church of England had in the time our Constitution was written. Our forefather did not mean to erase our past or influences, but our litigious culture has taken their words and bent them. I myself am atheist, but as Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say sir, but I will defend 'til the death your right to say it." If a city would like to put up Christmas decorations, it does not offend me, nor should it offend anyone who is secure in their own beliefs.

Perhaps the answer to the fact that we still deny others their rights, even though our nation was founded out of a need to protect religious freedoms, has to do with the insecurity of people in their own beliefs. People will forever fight over what other religions are allowed to do, if it contradicts with their own beliefs, or they don't consider the other group a religion.

That the law differentiates between the rights awarded to a religion and the rights available to a "cult." In reality, the differences between the two are negligible, but in the United States to be considered a "religion" an organization must have 60,000 members. (How they determine this now that the Census no longer collects religious data, is something I could not find the answer to.) To be fair, some countries have even higher standards, like Japan requires 100,000 members. (However, Japan also has more religions by their standards, than we do by ours). Who exactly decided that 60,000 was the number that guarantees one the religious freedom assured to us in our first amendment? Currently the IRS (which is involved in the definition of religion because it controls which churches receive tax exemption) has it's own set of criteria to qualify as a religion as well, which consists of fourteen points: " a distinct legal existence, a recognized creed and form of worship, a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government, a formal code of doctrine and discipline, a distinct religious history, a membership not associated with any other church or denomination, an organization of ordained ministers, ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies, a literature of its own, established places of worship, regular congregations, regular religious services, Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, and school for the preparation of its ministers." Clearly, these qualifiers are only met by a fraction of modern religious, most of which are Western. (Read more on defining religion in American law in this helpful essay.)

Wouldn't 10,000 members still be a sizable congregation? Isn't a church still a church if it doesn't provide youth classes? Religious freedom gets stalled even at our attempts to define religion. The saddest thing about this is it's not a matter of tax exemption, it's a matter about civil rights, and the ability to exist without persecution. The term "cult" has a very negative connotation, and cause all sorts trouble within the law. The Celtic branch of Paganism is considered a cult within the U.S., even though it is one of the oldest religions still in existence, and likely predates Christianity. U.S. law allows membership into a so-called cult, may be reason to remove a child in a custody case. Never mind that spiritual based religions like Paganism which are often not organized, and do not have as part of their tenets the conversion of others, are less likely to influence a child than attending church every Sunday, it is considered a detriment.

When our country started no religion had 60,000 members. So, I think it's safe to say, that when our forefathers drafted the constitution they didn't mean that we should give religious freedoms to the groups we recognized. It is simple, if a person has spiritual beliefs, they should be allowed to practice them, regardless of what anyone else thinks of those beliefs, as long as they do no harm to any other human being.

(We'll get into the issue what qualifies as human later, I'm not ready for a discussion on abortion yet.)