Consequences of Religious Freedom
The reactions to the the building of mosques and Muslim community centers in New York, Tennessee and elsewhere have got me thinking about the ramifications of religious freedom for our increasingly pluralistic society. Exercising the freedom of religion in this country as we do, we can’t reasonably expect our society to remain religiously static. Religious freedom allows for more than the freedom to worship (or not worship) as one sees fit in one’s home or private community; it also allows for religious believers to proclaim their religious beliefs in the public square through words, deeds, art, literature, architecture and other works of sacred significance. Moreover, as those who truly believe hold their beliefs to be, well, true, they tend to want to share their beliefs with others. Christians seek to make disciples of all nations. Muslims seek to spread Islam. It’s therefore quite conceivable that Christianity could in time cease to be the prominent religion in the United States. Another religion might someday take its place as the most commonly practiced religion. Such is a consequence of religious freedom.
The freedom that allows for the ebb and flow of prominent religions also prevents practitioners of a religion from using the law of the land to force others to follow their ways. Those who wish to practice their religion tomorrow would be ill advised to throw out religious freedom today fearing that another religion looks poised to increase its sway within society. It does no good to diminish or remove another’s freedom of religion fearing that the other will someday diminish or remove one’s own. We all share the same religious freedom. Fighting against another’s, we fight against our own. Those who fear a future in which they are no longer free to practice their religion ought to be out there defending religious freedom, even if it means an increase in religious pluralism.
The increased influence of Islam on our culture obviously challenges the narrative that the United States is a Judeo–Christian nation, and I suspect that challenge accounts for some of the reactions to the proposed Islamic places of worship. That narrative has more or less persisted under our framework of religious freedom, but the two are not necessary compatible. It’s therefore not surprising to see the religious freedom of Muslims being called into question by those who identify the U.S. as being essentially Judeo–Christian.
Comments are closed.
What Kyle says is so obviously true that it’s tragic that it needs to be said and that it takes real courage to say it. Kudos, Kyle.
It is naive to think that if the day comes that Islam is dominant within our society, that its adherents will be swayed greatly by respect for the western notion of freedom of religion, unless one believes that Dhimmitude constitutes something comparable to freedom of religion.
We should respect Muslims, but not be blind to what their faith demands of them. Respecting the faith of others is not high on the list of Islamic priorities.
This is not a question of religious freedom. This is a political and national issue since it is a bold statement of conquest by Islam. It really has nothing to do with their religion. It would be like the USA building a trade tower in Iraq. It is simply an in your face statement that is more a matter of national security than religious freedom.
This is a political and national issue since it is a bold statement of conquest by Islam.
Dan,
Islam is not the enemy of the United States. To imply that it is plays right into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who want potential recruits to believe the United States is fighting a war against Islam.
The aggressive Muslim faith preeminent in today’s world has no sense or appreciation of religious tolerance or acceptance. Too think otherwise is naive. They seek to establish Sharia law and bring all others under such a regime one way or another.
Proceed with caution.
Where did the adjective “Judeo-Christian” come from in the first place? I understand the Christian influence on the US (in its warped Calvinist and Gnostic sense), but the Jewish one? Do we see this melding in this other contexts? “Judeo-Christendom”? I think not. Is this not merely a rhetorical attempt to embody support of Israel at all costs, including war crimes against the (predominatlty Muslim but also signficantly Christian) Palestinian population?
One could indeed argue that a majority Muslim population could have negative side effects. But ask a Muslim in Iraq, in Palestine, or in Afghanistan today, and they will surely point out that the Christian character of the United States today has major negative side effects for them.
Such neocon generated memes as “Islamofacscism” which would equate Islam with socio-political ideologies such as Soviet or Maoist communism, or Nazism, are nothing more than propaganda aimed at the credulous rubes who follow in the wake of Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity, et al.
Islam, if you study its history, can be understood in great part as a monotheist reform of Christianity. Most Christians are surprised to learn the very important role of Jesus–as the Messiah, and Judge at the End of Time–in Islam, and that the Virgin Mary is mentioned more times in the Koran than she is in the New Testament. But, hey–if bigotry and hatred floats your boat, go for it.
Proceed with caution.
How so? The opposition to the New York mosque seems to be a clear case of religious bigotry. A mosque already exists in lower Manhattan and members of its congregation assisted in an admirable fashion to help the victims on 9/11. They now want to construct a new building and community center on private property and in accord with local zoning rules.
Could some of my “small-government” friends explain the justification of restricting a private property owner from erecting this building based on the religion of the property owner?
To the extent that friendship with Islam is a matter of religious freedom, it should be supported not because it’s tactically right, but because it’s morally right. To the extent that certain Muslim groups are a threat to national security, they should be dealt with accordingly.
MM is wrong that America’s Christianity is a threat to Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere, because America doesn’t base its policies on its predominant religion.
The term “Judeo-Christian” dates back pre-1948, as a Nazi slur on the one hand, and as a sign of a joint stand against anti-Semitism on the other.
They seek to establish Sharia law and bring all others under such a regime one way or another.
Of course, for many Catholics, it is not Sharia that all people must be bound by, but “Natural Law,” as understood by the Catholic Church. This is why the Church opposes same-sex marriage and abortion.
In any case, how can you preach “religious tolerance” and then say Muslims have no right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Should we say, “You can build mosques wherever you want, but first you have to learn religious tolerance, like we have?”
“This is not a question of religious freedom. This is a political and national issue since it is a bold statement of conquest by Islam. It really has nothing to do with their religion”
The problem is the First amendment and it just can;t be push aside when we want it. This is a extremely dangerous precedent that could be established. Especially with hate Speech legislation and such on the rise. It could really bit Christians back if we are not careful
To the extent that friendship with Islam is a matter of religious freedom, it should be supported not because it’s tactically right, but because it’s morally right.
Exactly.
To the extent that certain Muslim groups are a threat to national security, they should be dealt with accordingly.
Yes. And it is the obligation of the accusor to show the particular group is a threat.
Kurt – I hope that last comment was for emphasis, and not because I missed it. It goes without saying that we shouldn’t throw around accusations willy-nilly. Likewise, we shouldn’t cram our heads into the sand.
Pinky,
Yes. Is was directed against Governor Palin, who lost the little tiny warm spot she had in my heart after she joined up with the bigots on this issue.
Also unrelated, I once had my own neighborhood battle with a nationally known conservative media personality who decided to throw out the window everything she claimed to believe about private property rights and tort reform because she didn’t like a a development project in our neighborhood.
Excellent post, Kyle.
FYI – http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/27/headlines/tennessee_gop_candidate_questions_whether_islam_is_a_religion
Likewise, we shouldn’t cram our heads into the sand.
Pinky,
It seems to me the people who oppose the mosque being built near Ground Zero do so on the grounds that it is offensive, not dangerous.
If it is indeed dangerous, then it should not be built somewhere else; it should not be built at all.
Kurt, I wouldn’t hold a non-Catholic politician up to the same standard as a Catholic website. I can understand coming down wrong on this issue. Not only is it visceral (making it an easy target for demagoguery), and touches on personal safety, but it involves some pretty subtle theology about human freedom. It bothers me more that Kyle would get the right answer via tactical considerations than a politician getting the wrong answer through principles.
Kurt, I wouldn’t hold a non-Catholic politician up to the same standard as a Catholic website.
Nor would I. I would hold the politician to a higher standard.
While not always perfectly practiced, our nation has a long and honorable tradition of respecting religious freedom, based on our founding documents and experiences. For an American in public life to oppose a religious congregation being able to build a house of worship on private property and within legitimate zoning, is appalling and deserves to be called what it is — bigotry.
For the Catholic Church, even with the admirable contributions of John Courtney Murray, sj, and the teaching of the recent Council Dignitatis Humanae, the Catholic tradition probably has more to learn from the American tradition on religious liberty than the reverse.
While both Church and secular society should call for justice and human rights, on this particular matter, Americans in public life like Governor Palin really should be expected to act without doing violence to a fundamental American principle. It is sad she has chosen the route she did.