Religious Freedom - something that we "value" in America (or we claim to value) that seems to be slipping right between our fingers. I don't just mean Christianity, which might be thought of as the blanket religion of Americans. What about Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or Taoism? Where does the religious freedom in America really stand? There's a case before the Supreme Court which held it's first hearing today - November 6th - on "religion in public life".
Heres a brief synopsis of the case at hand (Town of Greece v Galloway): In the town of Greece, New York, the town council meets to discuss issues the town faces and gives a voice to those who want a say in the matters. At the beginning of each meeting there is a prayer. This prayer has come from the "chaplain of the month" (if you will) each time the board has met. Over the span of a decade, there have been different religious affiliates who have come and said the prayer, including the chairman of a local Baha'i congregation, a Jew, and a Wiccan Princess, to name a few. But for the most part, there have been a consistent amount of Christian prayers at the beginning of each meeting.
And this is the problem (well, it is for those who oppose the prayers).
A Federal appeals court ruled that the consistent "steady drumbeat", as a Washington Post article states, of Christian prayers is a violation of the constitution of the separation between church and state.
It would be easy for me, as a Christian, to lay claims that "this country was founded on Christian beliefs and morals" or that "This is the way it's always been done". But for your sake, and for mine, I'm not going to address this specifically with Christianity in mind like the case does. But rather, I believe it's important to examine this from an outside perspective looking in on religion in America. Because I believe this case is just another piece of evidence at the lack of respect and tolerance of freedom of religion in America. This is not just a recent occurrence - we can look back at another Supreme Court case in the 1980's that dealt almost exactly with what this case deals with today.
In 1982 Marsh v. Chamberlain went before the Court with this question: Does the chaplaincy practice in a court (specifically this Nebraska court) go against the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment? Chamberlain was arguing that the practice of having a prayer at the beginning of the courts meetings went against the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Marsh was arguing in favor of the Nebraska Court. The ruling was 6-3 in favor of Marsh, citing that it was essentially, an historical custom.
So why is this case so influential in what I'm talking about right now?
It's just evidence that this lack of spiritual freedom didn't begin after the millennium.
Of course, the court DID rule in favor of Marsh, but it's the argument made by Chamberlain that causes a cringe. It's certainly no secret that Americans are hyper-sensitive now-a-days to anything that offends them.
"Oh, don't put a mosque near ground zero, those are the kind of people that blew it up!!"
"No more prayer in public schools!"
"We should definitely change the 'Redskins' football team name...it's so offensive."
Perhaps you feel the same way as these examples above. But don't you see how ridiculously sensitive we've gotten over time? Galloway, in the Greece case, is arguing the same point that Chamberlain made back in 1982, but was ruled against. Which begs the question - why is this case even before the Court?
Here's why: no one can stand to be offended anymore.
We live in the country of comfort. And when someone comes in and interrupts our "comfort level", we lash out at them in whatever manner we can. We spit out insulting language via social media, or become a Facebook Filosopher, if you will. When someone doesn't support, agree with, contribute to, or give to a cause, faith, organization, or belief that we do....well, Americans seem to get their panties in a bundle. It's not so much a matter of what faith we believe in, but rather, how insulting it is because we believe it.
Would I feel the same way about this issue if I was Islamic? Honestly, maybe? I can't give a definitive answer...but I bet it would suck being profiled each time I walked into an airport. Or not wanting my place of worship near a construction site because it "resembles" the type of people that caused tragedy in 9/11. The answer is clear: there's no such thing as freedom of religion, or freedom of religious views in public anymore. Oh and just so we're clear, I suggest you read the article I'll link at the end of this post. The Founders of this country were not all Christians, or Jews, or Hindu, or Buddhist. Some didn't affiliate themselves with a religion at all. But they all agreed on one point as the article states,
"They took 'coercion' (of religious beliefs) seriously and did not dumb it down to include being 'offended'".
We're losing our freedoms by granting "offense" a reason for the law to get involved.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the article I talked about within this post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/dispute-over-prayer-at-ny-town-council-meetings-comes-before-supreme-court-wednesday/2013/11/06/5977ae12-46bb-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html
Other stories about the case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/05/praying-for-true-religious-freedom-at-the-supreme-court/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-case-on-religion-in-public-life/2013/11/01/d2ba8970-423d-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/05/founders-view-of-prayer-should-prevail-at-supreme-court/?tid=up_next
Heres a brief synopsis of the case at hand (Town of Greece v Galloway): In the town of Greece, New York, the town council meets to discuss issues the town faces and gives a voice to those who want a say in the matters. At the beginning of each meeting there is a prayer. This prayer has come from the "chaplain of the month" (if you will) each time the board has met. Over the span of a decade, there have been different religious affiliates who have come and said the prayer, including the chairman of a local Baha'i congregation, a Jew, and a Wiccan Princess, to name a few. But for the most part, there have been a consistent amount of Christian prayers at the beginning of each meeting.
And this is the problem (well, it is for those who oppose the prayers).
A Federal appeals court ruled that the consistent "steady drumbeat", as a Washington Post article states, of Christian prayers is a violation of the constitution of the separation between church and state.
It would be easy for me, as a Christian, to lay claims that "this country was founded on Christian beliefs and morals" or that "This is the way it's always been done". But for your sake, and for mine, I'm not going to address this specifically with Christianity in mind like the case does. But rather, I believe it's important to examine this from an outside perspective looking in on religion in America. Because I believe this case is just another piece of evidence at the lack of respect and tolerance of freedom of religion in America. This is not just a recent occurrence - we can look back at another Supreme Court case in the 1980's that dealt almost exactly with what this case deals with today.
In 1982 Marsh v. Chamberlain went before the Court with this question: Does the chaplaincy practice in a court (specifically this Nebraska court) go against the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment? Chamberlain was arguing that the practice of having a prayer at the beginning of the courts meetings went against the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Marsh was arguing in favor of the Nebraska Court. The ruling was 6-3 in favor of Marsh, citing that it was essentially, an historical custom.
So why is this case so influential in what I'm talking about right now?
It's just evidence that this lack of spiritual freedom didn't begin after the millennium.
Of course, the court DID rule in favor of Marsh, but it's the argument made by Chamberlain that causes a cringe. It's certainly no secret that Americans are hyper-sensitive now-a-days to anything that offends them.
"Oh, don't put a mosque near ground zero, those are the kind of people that blew it up!!"
"No more prayer in public schools!"
"We should definitely change the 'Redskins' football team name...it's so offensive."
Perhaps you feel the same way as these examples above. But don't you see how ridiculously sensitive we've gotten over time? Galloway, in the Greece case, is arguing the same point that Chamberlain made back in 1982, but was ruled against. Which begs the question - why is this case even before the Court?
Here's why: no one can stand to be offended anymore.
We live in the country of comfort. And when someone comes in and interrupts our "comfort level", we lash out at them in whatever manner we can. We spit out insulting language via social media, or become a Facebook Filosopher, if you will. When someone doesn't support, agree with, contribute to, or give to a cause, faith, organization, or belief that we do....well, Americans seem to get their panties in a bundle. It's not so much a matter of what faith we believe in, but rather, how insulting it is because we believe it.
Would I feel the same way about this issue if I was Islamic? Honestly, maybe? I can't give a definitive answer...but I bet it would suck being profiled each time I walked into an airport. Or not wanting my place of worship near a construction site because it "resembles" the type of people that caused tragedy in 9/11. The answer is clear: there's no such thing as freedom of religion, or freedom of religious views in public anymore. Oh and just so we're clear, I suggest you read the article I'll link at the end of this post. The Founders of this country were not all Christians, or Jews, or Hindu, or Buddhist. Some didn't affiliate themselves with a religion at all. But they all agreed on one point as the article states,
"They took 'coercion' (of religious beliefs) seriously and did not dumb it down to include being 'offended'".
We're losing our freedoms by granting "offense" a reason for the law to get involved.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the article I talked about within this post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/dispute-over-prayer-at-ny-town-council-meetings-comes-before-supreme-court-wednesday/2013/11/06/5977ae12-46bb-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html
Other stories about the case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/05/praying-for-true-religious-freedom-at-the-supreme-court/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-case-on-religion-in-public-life/2013/11/01/d2ba8970-423d-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/05/founders-view-of-prayer-should-prevail-at-supreme-court/?tid=up_next