Religious Liberty A Heritage at Stake

0 Comments

Religious Liberty: A Heritage at Stake
By Paul D. Simmons

[Paul D. Simmons, is Clinical Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine. He is also Adjunct Professor at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. He served as professor of Christian Ethics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, for twenty-three years. He has been pastor of churches in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee and leads conferences on issues in medical ethics, sexuality and the family, and human rights. He is author of Birth and Death. Bioethical Decision Making (Westminster, 1983) and Freedom of Conscience.. A Baptist/Humanist Dialogue (Prometheus, 2000). This material was First presented as the Howard Spell Lectures at Mississippi College and after various reprintings has now been revised and updated.]

A Free Church in a Free State
Religious Freedom–A Fragile Possession
Religious Liberty Under Fire
Speaking Up for the First Amendment

Freedom loving Americans take justifiable pride in celebrating the religious liberties assured by the First Amendment. Such freedoms should not be taken for granted. They were a long time in being fashioned but are under constant assault from opponents motivated by opportunism and/or ideology. A brief history of religious liberty is a reminder of the tortured story of this treasured heritage.

On October 15, 1573 in Antwerp, Belgium, the Inquisition was in full swing. A woman named Maeyken Wens was arrested and tortured. Her tongue was then screwed to her upper palate so she could not witness to her faith while she was hauled in a cart to the place where the sentence was carried out. She was burned at the stake.

What was her crime? What violation of law had she committed for which she was now suffering the ultimate punishment? She preached the Gospel as she understood it from her personal readings of the New Testament.

The Inquisitor had found her guilty of heresy, impiety, and disobedience to the Roman Catholic "Mother Church." And for that, the government put her to death. There was no separation of church and state. "God" was directly related to the affairs of government. Catholic doctrine was imposed by law.

Religious liberty was only a dream. It was put to the torch as they burned Maeyken Wens, an Anabaptist mother of nine.

A century later (1672) in Bedford, England, a gentle woman pled her case before the judge. Her request was simply that her husband be released from jail. He was now in his twelfth year without a trial.

Her husband was John Bunyan. His crime was that he had disobeyed the Queen`s orders to stop preaching Baptist doctrines and beliefs. There was no room for dissent from orthodox Anglican doctrine in England. Bunyan served a total of 14 years in prison for insisting on freedom of conscience in religious matters. His imprisonment was interrupted for a time when his wife appealed to the sympathetic judge.

The fires of religious intolerance still burned in England. An official church and its `Act of Intolerance" forbade any religious witness not approved by the Crown. Bunyan died in 1688.

Nearly a century later, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a dramatic conversation took place between neighbors in Orange County. They were James Madison and John Leland. The subject was the established church of Virginia. The Baptists felt it unjust that they should be taxed to pay the salaries of Anglican priests and support the work of a church with whom they had strong religious differences.

A political consensus was apparently reached. Leland would withdraw his opposition to Madison and Baptists would support the Jefferson-Madison efforts to disestablish religion in Virginia, and to assure religious liberty in the Constitutional Congress. Virginia approved a declaration of religious liberty in January, 1786, and the Constitutional Congress followed suit under the leadership of Madison and Jefferson who later spoke eloquently of a "wall of separation" that should exist between church and state.

A Free Church in a Free State

Maeyken Wens had not died in vain. John Bunyan`s imprisonment had been redemptive. From the blood, tears, ashes and prayers of those who had suffered so brutally for insisting on liberties of the mind and conscience, a new era came into being. A new relation between church and state without parallel in other countries of the world was being implemented in America.

States slowly but wisely adopted the new Amendment. Connecticut dropped its established church in 1818 and Massachusetts in 1833. That new vision was taking hold in the community of states that was to assure that ancient patterns of oppression and evil alliances would not be repeated in America. Three patterns were clearly rejected.

First, in this new republic there would be no dominant church over state. The Holy Roman Empire was dead. It would not extend its evil collusion of church and government into this "kingdom by the sea."

Second, gone were the days when the King could control a subservient church. King Henry VIII had only reversed the political alliance he saw in Rome. With Thomas Hobbes, he felt the state should control the church.

Third, the theocratic vision of Puritan New England was also rejected. In America citizenship would in no way be linked to orthodox religious believers, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Puritan.

A New Vision had been born-a Free Church in a Free State. An amendment was added to the Constitution of this new and different land: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This simple but profoundly important amendment was intended to guarantee that:

Congress would make no religious group or church the established or favored or official church for the nation;
Citizens would not be required to pay taxes to support any religious establishment; the various religious groups would be free to support themselves by their own constituents, but government funds would not be used to support religious causes or institutions;
Congress or government officials would not interfere in doctrinal disputes; no religious dogma would be made law for everyone; nor would anyone be forced to live by any particular doctrine;
Dissent on religious opinion could not become the basis of criminal prosecution;
Government would not interfere with religious exercises; it would occupy itself with maintaining domestic tranquility and defending the country against enemies both domestic and foreign;
The people would be free to be religious or not religious; the power of government could not be used to force religious practice or doctrine upon anyone. Religion was to be purely voluntary. Government could use its coercive powers only for the interests of state; it would not attempt to be a religious body; prayer and doctrine are not in its jurisdiction.
By this Amendment, a new relation between religion and politics was fashioned. Gone was the fear of the executioners gibbet for heresy; gone were the tears of broken homes and tortured bodies for those who dared dissent; gone were the days of paying taxes through government channels to support religious causes.

The task of government was to preserve and protect this arrangement of religious and secular affairs. The courts were appointed guardians to assure strict adherence to the "wall of separation" that should exist between the powers of church and those of the state. Congress was carefully restricted in the types of law that could be imposed upon the citizenry-no dogma could be camouflaged as law-even under the guise of majority opinion.

Religious liberty was given birth. A glad and glorious era was conceived and brought forth in this new land. A witness was raised to all the world that drawing a firm line between the interests of government and those of institutional religion would best protect the uniqueness and value of each. Religious groups like the Baptists and Methodists and free-thinkers like Madison and Jefferson believed that liberty in religion would better assure the freedoms of government and civil co-existence in a pluralist society.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION meant that government could not coerce people of faith to conform to regulations in doctrine, morals or polity not of their church`s own making.

FREEDOM FOR RELIGION meant that religious leaders were free to speak their mind, even criticizing policies and practices of government without fear of civil punishment or retribution.

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION candidly recognized that even atheists have rights of conscience in a free and pluralistic society. Government would also protect the rights of those who preferred no religion at all.

Religious Freedom–A Fragile Possession

A Social Contract of toleration, respect, and acceptance of various religious traditions and doctrinal persuasions was fashioned and accepted by all groups consenting to the new Constitution.

The covenant was dearly won. But religious liberty and the tolerance it requires between and among the various faith traditions was and is a fragile possession. Its protections lie in the First Amendment, an informed Supreme Court and judicial system, a friendly and supportive Congress and Executive branch of government, and the mutual agreements of the various denominations in America.

Over two hundred years after that precarious agreement, we are now testing whether it can survive a new assault and assure our children of the liberties thus far enjoyed but too often simply taken for granted. New alliances have emerged that threaten the guarantees which are at the heart of the First Amendment. Religious Liberty is under fire.

The "Free Church in a Free State" idea has probably always been a minority opinion in America. Now the church-overstaters, the state-over-churchers, the Puritan theocrats, and a variety of politicians who care little for religion but a great deal about personal power are working feverishly to erase the protections and privileges of separation of church from state.

Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians whose roots are in Puritan New England are trying to exploit newly-organized political power in Washington. Pat Robertson with his Christian Coalition intends to name the next president of the United States and to influence if not control the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. The Religious Right wants America to be a theocracy with civil and religious morality intertwined. They seek to impose their moral and doctrinal opinions on everyone. They would make us all free to believe just as they do. The Puritan preacher was a stern moralist who believed that the laity, mere mortals, could never decide rightly before God. Only the clergy had such authority from God. Playing God, judging the laity, and ordering the magistrate to pass laws to serve righteousness and assure doctrinal fidelity was God`s will for the Puritan preacher, or so they believed.

Religious Liberty Under Fire

The long line from Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards I now includes Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and other Fundamentalists who seek political power "in the name of God." Falwell believes God has called him to reform America in the Puritan image. As he once said: "I have a divine mandate to go right into the halls of Congress and fight for laws that will save America. He has called me to this action."

The mentality that blended religion and politics is precisely what drove Roger Williams out of Massachusetts and into the wilderness with the Indians during the frigid winter of 1635. The land he purchased became the Colony of Rhode Island, which became a bastion of religious freedom. No matter whether one was Catholic, Jew, Protestant, Muslim, or an atheist, one was free to follow the dictates of one`s own conscience. The First Amendment to the Constitution followed the Rhode Island example.

The Puritans among us would still suppress dissent, control our thoughts and freedom of expression, muzzle our minds and ban our books. They still insist on doctrinal creeds and conformity to their own moralistic codes. Puritanism we have with us always; it lives to kill the freedom of the human spirit in the name of "Christian orthodoxy." Soul competence and freedom of conscience have never been tenets of Puritan theology. The Fundamentalists are putting religious liberty under fire.

Politically, the evangelical fervor is organized into a powerful rightwing movement. The coalition supports ultra-conservative causes and political leaders. The coalition is broad enough to include certain Protestants, the National Council of Catholic Bishops, and others who share their radical socio/religious agenda. The fiery rhetoric of "culture wars" and the belligerence of an absolutist mindset typify the style and strategy of the religious right. Politicians such as Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Lamar Alexander and Gary Bauer openly solicit the favor of this reactionary movement by supporting policies that are inimical to the First Amendment:

Tuition tax credits and school vouchers are sought under the guise of "choice" and quality education and would in effect provide public funding for religious education;
The traditional Roman Catholic approach to family planning has dictated federal regulations domestically and in our nation`s foreign policy;
A proposed ban on abortion has wide support in Congress and in state legislatures based on Roman Catholic dogma, a doctrine that one is a person "from the moment of conception" which is odious doctrine to many Protestants, American Catholics, and Jews.
Barriers to abortion are imposed by many states which penalize women whose faith tradition and religious convictions support their decision to terminate a problem pregnancy.
Requirements for mandated prayer in the public schools continue to be proposed at both state and national levels; and,
Continued efforts to pass an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that "America is a Christian nation.
The Constitution assures us that Congress should make no law governing religious matters. Prayer is the business of the church; it is entirely voluntary and should not be used to badger or harass people with different religious perspectives. The coercive arm of government does not belong in the religious arena.

William Bennett, Former Secretary of Education and now active in the Religious Right argues that "freedom of religion is being destroyed" by those who oppose government-mandated prayers and tuition tax credits. His "values in education" agenda is strongly committed to breaking down the wall of separation between church and state. He believes religion will not survive if government does not subsidize the educational and missionary enterprises of the churches.

To the contrary, religion in America has never, does not now and will not in the future depend upon government subsidies to survive. Only those theocrats and church-over-staters who believe government should finance religious affairs believe otherwise. Their ideology, self-interest and tradition seem clearly evident. Those who say that separation of church and state is supported only by secularists are sadly mistaken. It was given birth and is strongly supported by those of the free church tradition.

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese led repeated attacks on the Supreme Court which were thinly-disguised attacks on religious liberty. He advocated government-mandated prayer in good theocratic or church-state collusion fashion, and screened candidates for federal judgeships who met his religious "litmus test." Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, who had prayers and posted the Ten Commandments in his Courtroom in violation of the Supreme Court`s rulings, was a Meese choice. Moore was joined in his crusade by then-governor Fob James who threatened to call out the National Guard if anyone attempted to remove the Decalogue from the courtroom.

Bennett and others are right to say that the Judeao-Christian tradition has made a vital contribution to American government. But that contribution is best seen and experienced in one word-freedom. That means freedom from coercion by government in religious matters; freedom from doctrinal orthodoxy imposed by legislative fiat; and freedom from state financial support for religious enterprises.

Speaking Up for the First Amendment

All political leaders need a good course in American history taught by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The text could be The Federalist Papers. And if they are genuinely interested in religious liberty, let them learn from those who suffered, bled, and died to win that First Amendment guarantee. Let them listen to Maeyken Wens, John Bunyan, John Leland, Isaac Backus, and uncounted others! Let them listen to the cries of those children who suffered when their parents were imprisoned, tortured, or burned at the stake. Let them listen to the moans and prayers of those who cried for liberty from prison cells.

Those who suffered for religious liberty did not need, and we do not want, kings or parliaments, presidents or Congress to tell us we must pray. Politicians need to pray for themselves and by example show the power of prayer to overcome personal prejudice and the arrogant misuse of political power. When they learn the stern lesson of voluntarism in religion, they will begin to understand the First Amendment.

Until they do, those blessed heirs of Williams, Leland, Jefferson and Madison ought to band together, not only to pray for Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, but to insist that they respect and protect our rights to religious liberty.

Thomas Jefferson once vowed to maintain eternal vigilance and wage constant war against every tyranny over the human mind. Our spirits, our consciences, and our minds are in jeopardy of an old tyranny, church-state union in a new disguise. It seems clear that those politicians and religious charlatans speaking most about the danger to religious liberty are the biggest threat to that precious freedom. Let not the misguided, the ignorant, and the demagogues rule the day.

The time has come to say "NO" to further assaults on the wall of separation between church and state. With our cards and letters, our telephone calls, our personal influence, and our votes, let us stand for religious liberty.

And there is Scripture for this. Hear the word of God proclaimed by Baptists and others who died for the right to be heard by presidents and parishioners alike:

`For freedom Christ has set us free.. stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5.1)..