Religious freedom: It’s a core American principle, and it doesn’t mean what right-wingers want it to mean
by Paul Rosenberg, Salon,
17 January 2017. Although
the latter-day GOP has tried to pervert this critical idea, it’s not about
selling cakes to gay couples
George
Washington; Barack Obama; Thomas Jefferson (Credit: Wikimedia/AP/Desmond
Boyland/Salon)
Washington; Barack Obama; Thomas Jefferson (Credit: Wikimedia/AP/Desmond
Boyland/Salon)
Forget the “War on Christmas.” Religious Freedom Day,
which fell on Jan. 16 this year and coincided with the observance of Martin
Luther King Jr. Day, has become one of America’s most-contested commemorative
days. In most ways that’s a good thing because of the need to shed light on
what’s at stake: the very foundations of our most cherished freedoms.
which fell on Jan. 16 this year and coincided with the observance of Martin
Luther King Jr. Day, has become one of America’s most-contested commemorative
days. In most ways that’s a good thing because of the need to shed light on
what’s at stake: the very foundations of our most cherished freedoms.
Although many members of the
public are unfamiliar with it, Religious Freedom Day has since 1992 publicly
celebrated the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,
which was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and passed into law by his
protégé, James Madison, in 1786. It disestablished the state power of the
Anglican Church and ensured religious freedom for all.
public are unfamiliar with it, Religious Freedom Day has since 1992 publicly
celebrated the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,
which was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and passed into law by his
protégé, James Madison, in 1786. It disestablished the state power of the
Anglican Church and ensured religious freedom for all.
For Jefferson and progressives
today, the statute — which paved the way for the First Amendment — was a
revolutionary break with theocratic rule, a fundamental precondition for all
the freedoms we enjoy today or still are struggling to secure. Jefferson saw it
as a crowning lifetime achievement, one so important it is inscribed on his
tombstone. Its centrality was recognized by President Barack Obama in this
year’s Religious Freedom Day
proclamation:
today, the statute — which paved the way for the First Amendment — was a
revolutionary break with theocratic rule, a fundamental precondition for all
the freedoms we enjoy today or still are struggling to secure. Jefferson saw it
as a crowning lifetime achievement, one so important it is inscribed on his
tombstone. Its centrality was recognized by President Barack Obama in this
year’s Religious Freedom Day
proclamation:
Religious freedom is a principle
based not on shared ancestry, culture, ethnicity, or faith but on a shared
commitment to liberty — and it lies at the very heart of who we are as
Americans. As a Nation, our strength comes from our diversity, and we must be
unified in our commitment to protecting the freedoms of conscience and
religious belief and the freedom to live our lives according to them.
based not on shared ancestry, culture, ethnicity, or faith but on a shared
commitment to liberty — and it lies at the very heart of who we are as
Americans. As a Nation, our strength comes from our diversity, and we must be
unified in our commitment to protecting the freedoms of conscience and
religious belief and the freedom to live our lives according to them.
But for members of the Christian
right, religious freedom means almost exactly the opposite: the “freedom” to
impose their will on everyone else, precisely the sort of power over others
that Jefferson fought so hard against.
right, religious freedom means almost exactly the opposite: the “freedom” to
impose their will on everyone else, precisely the sort of power over others
that Jefferson fought so hard against.
The religious right has been
organizing intensively around its Orwellian redefinition of the term since the
beginning of the Obama era. This was laid out in detail in a report by
Frederick Clarkson of Political Research Associates titled “When Exemption Is the Rule: The
Religious Freedom Strategy of the Christian Right,” as I summarized for
Salon last year:
organizing intensively around its Orwellian redefinition of the term since the
beginning of the Obama era. This was laid out in detail in a report by
Frederick Clarkson of Political Research Associates titled “When Exemption Is the Rule: The
Religious Freedom Strategy of the Christian Right,” as I summarized for
Salon last year:
The title highlights a key aspect
of the religious right’s long-term strategy, taking the time-honored principle
of religious exemption, intended to protect the individual right
of conscience, and expanding it recklessly to apply to whole institutions, even
for-profit businesses — as seen in the Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby
decision, in a process designed to fragment the common public sphere and carve
out vast segments of American life where civil rights, labor law and other core
protections simply do not apply.
of the religious right’s long-term strategy, taking the time-honored principle
of religious exemption, intended to protect the individual right
of conscience, and expanding it recklessly to apply to whole institutions, even
for-profit businesses — as seen in the Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby
decision, in a process designed to fragment the common public sphere and carve
out vast segments of American life where civil rights, labor law and other core
protections simply do not apply.
This strategy was kicked into
high gear back in 2009 with the “Manhattan Declaration,” a widely endorsed
manifesto linking “freedom of religion” specifically to “sanctity of life” and
“dignity of marriage,” which religious progressives are just beginning to
effectively counter-organize against. This report represents a significant
beacon, shedding light on that strategy, the battlefield it’s waged on, and the
kinds of long-term responses needed to counter-organize against it.
high gear back in 2009 with the “Manhattan Declaration,” a widely endorsed
manifesto linking “freedom of religion” specifically to “sanctity of life” and
“dignity of marriage,” which religious progressives are just beginning to
effectively counter-organize against. This report represents a significant
beacon, shedding light on that strategy, the battlefield it’s waged on, and the
kinds of long-term responses needed to counter-organize against it.
Clarkson stressed that the
arguments being mounted today are virtually identical to those made decades ago
when the religious right’s earliest organizing efforts involved defending Bob
Jones University’s “right to discriminate” on religious grounds:
arguments being mounted today are virtually identical to those made decades ago
when the religious right’s earliest organizing efforts involved defending Bob
Jones University’s “right to discriminate” on religious grounds:
As recently as the 1980s,
Christian Right activists defended racial segregation by claiming that
restrictions on their ability to discriminate violated their First Amendment
right to religious freedom. . . .
Christian Right activists defended racial segregation by claiming that
restrictions on their ability to discriminate violated their First Amendment
right to religious freedom. . . .
Instead of African Americans
being discriminated against by Bob Jones, the university argued it was the
party being discriminated against in being prevented from executing its First
Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed.
being discriminated against by Bob Jones, the university argued it was the
party being discriminated against in being prevented from executing its First
Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Over the past year progressive
awareness around religious freedom has grown significantly. The right’s
recent strategy is more widely known and talked about, and in addition a
positive counter-vision is taking hold, combining a deeper appreciation of
Jefferson’s original vision with its living importance to all of us today.
awareness around religious freedom has grown significantly. The right’s
recent strategy is more widely known and talked about, and in addition a
positive counter-vision is taking hold, combining a deeper appreciation of
Jefferson’s original vision with its living importance to all of us today.
In a Jan. 9 webinar kicking off a
week of activity in advance of Religious Freedom Day, Clarkson brought to life
the oppressive political context Jefferson was responding to: “Six months
after authoring the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson joined with several
others in January 1777 to discuss what would later become the Virginia
statute,” Clarkson said.
week of activity in advance of Religious Freedom Day, Clarkson brought to life
the oppressive political context Jefferson was responding to: “Six months
after authoring the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson joined with several
others in January 1777 to discuss what would later become the Virginia
statute,” Clarkson said.
“It was an urgent committee
meeting because the success of the revolution depended in part on the cobbling
together of a coalition of stakeholders, and religious dissenters of Virginia —
the Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists — were necessary if there would be
any chance of defeating what was at the time the greatest military power in the
history of the world,” Clarkson added.
meeting because the success of the revolution depended in part on the cobbling
together of a coalition of stakeholders, and religious dissenters of Virginia —
the Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists — were necessary if there would be
any chance of defeating what was at the time the greatest military power in the
history of the world,” Clarkson added.
If that sounds eerily familiar,
there’s a good reason. As is the case for the Democratic Party of today,
the popular foundation of the American revolution came from a diverse array of
socially subjugated out-groups. But they weren’t brought together through quid
pro quo backroom deals; they were brought together with a liberationist vision.
there’s a good reason. As is the case for the Democratic Party of today,
the popular foundation of the American revolution came from a diverse array of
socially subjugated out-groups. But they weren’t brought together through quid
pro quo backroom deals; they were brought together with a liberationist vision.
“Attendance at an Anglican church
on Sunday was compulsory,” Clarkson explained. “Failure to attend was one of
the most prosecuted crimes in colonial Virginia in the years before the
revolution.” Legally, members of local Anglican church vestries “were also
empowered to report crimes like heresy and blasphemy to local grand juries.
Violators were dealt with harshly.”
on Sunday was compulsory,” Clarkson explained. “Failure to attend was one of
the most prosecuted crimes in colonial Virginia in the years before the
revolution.” Legally, members of local Anglican church vestries “were also
empowered to report crimes like heresy and blasphemy to local grand juries.
Violators were dealt with harshly.”
But that’s not all. “Baptists were
often victims of vigilante violence,” since practicing their faith made them
publicly vulnerable, he said. “Men on horseback would often ride through the
crowds gathered to witness a baptism, and preachers were horsewhipped and
dunked in rivers and ponds . . . in a rude parody of their baptism ritual.
Blacks attendees at these meetings, whether free or slave, were subject to
particularly savage beatings” — a bleak picture all too easy to imagine today.
often victims of vigilante violence,” since practicing their faith made them
publicly vulnerable, he said. “Men on horseback would often ride through the
crowds gathered to witness a baptism, and preachers were horsewhipped and
dunked in rivers and ponds . . . in a rude parody of their baptism ritual.
Blacks attendees at these meetings, whether free or slave, were subject to
particularly savage beatings” — a bleak picture all too easy to imagine today.
“This was all in recent memory of
such abuses that helped to create the political moment that made Virginia the
first government in the history of the world to self-impose complete religious
freedom and equality,” Clarkson said. “This actually effectively disestablished
the Anglican church as the state church of Virginia, curtailing its
extraordinary powers and privileges. It also decreed that citizens were
free to believe as they will and that this — and this is the key phrase
in the legislation — that ‘this shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect
their civil capacities.’ Put another way, one’s religious identity was
irrelevant to one’s standing as a citizen.”
such abuses that helped to create the political moment that made Virginia the
first government in the history of the world to self-impose complete religious
freedom and equality,” Clarkson said. “This actually effectively disestablished
the Anglican church as the state church of Virginia, curtailing its
extraordinary powers and privileges. It also decreed that citizens were
free to believe as they will and that this — and this is the key phrase
in the legislation — that ‘this shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect
their civil capacities.’ Put another way, one’s religious identity was
irrelevant to one’s standing as a citizen.”
Clarkson went on to point out
that Jefferson left no doubt about the legislation in his autobiography. “He
wrote that the legislature had rejected a reference to Jesus Christ and that
this proved that the legislation sought to protect the Jew, the Gentile, the
Christian, the Mohammedan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination.”
This was one of several facets of early American history recently cited in a New York Times book review by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to
make the point that “some of our founding fathers were very comfortable
extending religious freedom to include Islam.”
that Jefferson left no doubt about the legislation in his autobiography. “He
wrote that the legislature had rejected a reference to Jesus Christ and that
this proved that the legislation sought to protect the Jew, the Gentile, the
Christian, the Mohammedan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination.”
This was one of several facets of early American history recently cited in a New York Times book review by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to
make the point that “some of our founding fathers were very comfortable
extending religious freedom to include Islam.”
Clarkson focused intensely on
Jefferson because of his central role and repeatedly articulated views. But he
was hardly an isolated figure — and not just because Madison was his protégé.
The same political situation that Jefferson dealt with in Virginia was
replicated throughout colonial America and persisted through the formation of
the United States, bringing other leaders to embrace a similar outlook as well.
A case in point was George Washington.
Jefferson because of his central role and repeatedly articulated views. But he
was hardly an isolated figure — and not just because Madison was his protégé.
The same political situation that Jefferson dealt with in Virginia was
replicated throughout colonial America and persisted through the formation of
the United States, bringing other leaders to embrace a similar outlook as well.
A case in point was George Washington.
A Daily Kos diary this week, “Founding Father George Washington
on Religious Freedom” went into considerable
detail about Washington’s engagement with Rhode Island about its eventual
approval of the Bill of Rights — most notably the First Amendment. In August
1790 before Rhode Island had voted, Washington paid the state his first visit:
on Religious Freedom” went into considerable
detail about Washington’s engagement with Rhode Island about its eventual
approval of the Bill of Rights — most notably the First Amendment. In August
1790 before Rhode Island had voted, Washington paid the state his first visit:
Washington and his group were
greeted by Newport’s leading citizens and representatives from the many
religious denominations present in the city, including the Jews. Politicians,
businessmen, and clergy read letters of welcome to the President. Among them
was Moses Seixas, one of the leaders of Yeshuat Israel, the first Jewish
congregation in Newport. The address read by Seixas was an elegant expression
of the Jewish community’s delight in Washington as leader and in a democratic
government. Seixas wrote:
greeted by Newport’s leading citizens and representatives from the many
religious denominations present in the city, including the Jews. Politicians,
businessmen, and clergy read letters of welcome to the President. Among them
was Moses Seixas, one of the leaders of Yeshuat Israel, the first Jewish
congregation in Newport. The address read by Seixas was an elegant expression
of the Jewish community’s delight in Washington as leader and in a democratic
government. Seixas wrote:
“Deprived as we heretofore have
been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of
gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected
by the Majesty of the People — a Government, which to bigotry gives no
sanction, to persecution no assistance — but generously affording to All
liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of
whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental
Machine.”
been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of
gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected
by the Majesty of the People — a Government, which to bigotry gives no
sanction, to persecution no assistance — but generously affording to All
liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of
whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental
Machine.”
