It’s Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom from Religion

The primary legal source that protects religious freedom for all American citizens is the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  These “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses forbid governmental entanglement with matters of religion.  This means government may not favor one religion over another; may not target one religion for particular benefits and burden another; may not entangle itself in core ecclesiastical subjects; may not set itself up as the arbiter of religious truth and enforce its determinations as law … just to name a few.  With this simple statement, the U.S. Constitution rightly established the proper boundaries for religions and for the state.  The two clauses protect the same central liberty … from two slightly different directions: the “establishment” clause forbids government prescription of religious exercise; and the “free exercise” clause forbids government proscription of religious practices.  The government should not try to force compliance with any particular religious belief or practice, or compel people to support any particular religion – because religious belief … if it is to be genuine … cannot be forced on people against their will.

 

By the same token, the opposite of the “compel religion” view is in error: that we should “exclude religion” from the public square; that religious belief should be kept at home and limited to places of worship; that it should not influence a civil society. 

 

This “exclude religion” view has had a strong influence in recent campaigns to persuade the courts and public opinion in legalizing same-sex “marriage.”  If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed, they could well be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments in light of their moral values against the likes of abortion, euthanasia, mandated costs of reproductive health by employers, and in the case of Christian owned/operated businesses – requiring them to service the gay agenda … all of which encroach on their religious principles.  By such reasoning, all actions of religious citizens and civil officials for almost any moral issue could be found invalid.  This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established and contrary to what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the 1st Amendment.  This changes freedom of religion into freedom from religion.  Our Founders never envisioned that the 1st Amendment would become a weapon to excise Christian or traditional religious expressions from the public arena.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel