Should there be Empathy for Terrorism?

 

Being an advocate of universal empathy and benevolent reciprocity, acts of sheer terror such as the Charlie Hebdo attack place me squarely on the horns of a dilemma, especially since I am opposed to the death penalty as well. So, since I do not shy away from cognitive dissonance, as I write this piece, I will attempt reconcile my seemingly opposing concepts. I turn to philosophy.

On one horn, I am a devotee of the John Stuart Mill School of Free Speech—a school of empathic thought that says, in Mill’s words:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.  –John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 2 – Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

Side note: It is clear to me that this mode of thought, in no small measure, influenced Jefferson and Madison when they crafted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the intent of which is laid out in Jefferson’s Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. And that intent is the very heart of a constitutionally limited, representative democracy (a republic). I no longer see our nation as such, however, but that is an argument for another time.

Indeed, as Mill wrote concerning the “tyranny of the majority”:

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing (sic) are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices (sic) a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of  human affairs, as protection against political despotism. —John Stuart Mill, On liberty, chapter 1

Thus I have to say that Charlie Hebdo has, in my opinion, every right to lampoon fundamentalist Islam, bearing in mind that their parodies of Mohammad is not the root cause of the terrorist attack, but was a contributing factor.

On the other horn of my dilemma is the root cause of the Charlie Hebdo attack—that of the right of fundamentalist religions to preach and believe as they do—a religious teaching that encourages murder as revenge for perceived insults to Islam. Too, it is for the most part a mindset with which one cannot reason. This last point, of course, is the same for peaceful but still dangerous fundamentalist, religious beliefs of Western nations. If one is convinced that he will burn in an everlasting Hell if he does not abide by the doctrines he was taught to believe, how can anyone change his mind? Cannonballs of logic and reason will not dent his walls of dogma. But, has he the right to teach and build those walls for others?

This brings me back to Mill, who wrote:

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions, that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. —John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 2 – Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

Therefore, fundamentalist Islam does, indeed, have a right to teach its opinions, although Mill would not condone—nor would any person possessing even a molecule of humanity and reason—allowing it to act out its nefarious teachings.

The solution? By allowing radical and harmful ideas to be spoken, society, perceiving the danger, knows who to watch and to whom contrary opinions, especially those of empathy, must be conveyed. Still, there must be constraints, especially in fundamentalist Islam, to prevent harmful acts. If the individuals of the group are beyond reason, then society must protect itself, by any means necessary—although capture should be our primary concern.

However, terrorists who are captured should not be put to death, but imprisoned and detoxed, if possible, of their harmful concepts. If they cannot be detoxed, then they must remain in prison and be treated humanly.

This episode highlights why I promote the view that every individual should rid himself of all religious dogma, saving only the single concept of benevolent reciprocity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This goes for Western nations as well. Our primary goal, above all, should be the elimination of poverty and corporate/government greed–the ultimate medium for radicalism to grow.

I welcome your arguments and corrections if you find any.


Max T. Furr is author of The Empathy Imperative, a philosophical novel that takes a critical look at justice, love, and mercy, and written in the spirit of the BBC/WGBH Boston film production, God On Trial. 

Based on

Advertisements

ANSWERS IN GENESIS: A Profile in Parasitism (AN UPDATE)

—-Updated from my original post, Answers in Genesis: A Profile in Parasitism.—-

The State of Kentucky has decided to extend no further tax incentives to Ark Encounters, a Christian fundamentalist theme park.

The Mask of Deception

           The Mask of Deception

Now, I understand that some folks might think the following is a continuing attack against Christianity in general and Answers in Genesis (AiG) in particular. On the contrary. I am only suggesting how I believe empathy could be applied to this situation such that the solution is in the best interest of everyone. That is, by the way, the purpose of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Fairness requires empathy, and empathy can only be derived from within.

First, with regard to AiG, note that no one is making any attempt to shut down its right to purchase property and have a theme park. First Amendment watchdog groups demand only that governments–federal, state and local–represent all of its citizens, without regard to their religious beliefs, their political opinions, or their financial standing. All working citizens pay taxes, thus, all citizens must have free access to commerce and must not be forced to subsidise sectarian religion.

Secondly, in the United States–as most of you know–all religions are to be treated equally under constitutional law. The only way this can be accomplished is for the government to remain neutral in matters of religion, (i.e., it cannot make laws respecting anyone’s religion).

When the courts attend matters of church and state separation, they reference the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which may be found in Jefferson’s Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. Here is the excerpt pertinent to the AiG case.

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical . . . [note that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian]

How could this be more empathetic and fair to all citizens?

Now, with regard to AIG’s ongoing efforts to have the taxpayers of Kentucky pony up 10s of million$ more in tax breaks for its restrictive, fundamentalist Ark Encounters theme park, after Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) reminded Kentucky lawmakers, many times, that they were elected to serve all the people and not just fundamentalist Christians, the State backed out of further tax incentives for the park. AiG is now resorting to revenge attacks for being forced to abide by the Constitution.

From AU:

Answers in Genesis (AiG), a creationist Christian ministry, had applied for a 25 percent sales tax rebate through the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet for Ark Encounter, a theme park that will feature a 510-foot replica of Noah’s Ark. The application received preliminary approval, and since the project is expected to cost $73 million, final approval would have cost the state up to $18 million in sales tax revenue.

But the Ark Park sailed into stormy seas in August when Americans United informed the tourism cabinet that AiG had posted online an opening for a computer-assisted design technician to work at Ark Encounter. That job post has since been removed, but in the August description, AiG said applicants must submit a “[c]reation belief statement,” as well as “[c]onfirmation of [their] agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith.”

That “statement of faith” required potential AiG employees to affirm their belief that homosexuality is a sin on par with bestiality and incest, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the Bible is literally true. Anyone who doesn’t agree with those statements won’t be considered for the job. (Read more here.)

According to AiG’s own website, “The purpose of the Ark Encounter park is to point people to the only means of salvation from sin, the Lord Jesus Christ, who also is the only God-appointed way to escape eternal destruction.”

But after receiving word of the tax-break cutoff, according to AU, “AiG . . . said earlier this week that it would run 16 billboards throughout the state promoting Ark Encounter and attacking ‘intolerant’ groups like AU. AiG also said it bought a 15-second digital video display that will run in New York City’s Times Square.”

AiG feels that it has been attacked unfairly and is being denied its “right” to tax dollars from non-fundamentalist Christian people–the same folks they would bar from employment at the park, no matter what their qualifications.

I have to wonder, What would the politicians of Kentucky, who want to continue the tax breaks, do if a group of Muslim citizens wanted the State to give them tax incentives to establish a park dedicated to Islam? Would you think that the folks at AiG would object?

How do you feel about this? Does AiG have a right to tax dollars? Should all religions have that same right?

Acts of Empathy

Handling explosive emotions demands five acts of Empathy

Excerpted and edited for ISHN by Dave Johnson

Everybody agrees that empathy is crucial to risk communication. Vincent Covello, for example, argues that caring/empathy accounts for 50 percent of trust; the other 50 percent, he says, is shared about equally by dedication/commitment, honesty/openness, and competence/expertise. He often quotes an old saying to the effect that people (especially people who are upset) don’t care what you know until they know that you care.

So if you do care, showing you care is obviously crucial. What isn’t so obvious is how to show you care, how to express your empathy.

Read more at http://www.ishn.com/articles/handling-explosive-emotions-demands-five-acts-of-empathy

—————————————————————————————————————————

Empathy in Action – Erinn Phelan’s Selfless Act

By Arthur P. Ciaramicoli, Ed.D., Ph.D

We read about the poor character of celebrities every day but acts like Erinn Phelan’s attempt to save the life of her college roommate are buried in pages far from the headlines.

Erinn is a Brown graduate who had found her ideal job after graduation last summer working for Mayor Bloomberg in his new volunteerism initiative.

As Erinn and her college roommate Alma Guerrero crossed a street in Brooklyn this past Sunday they were hit by a car that didn’t stop. . .

Read more at http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/empathy-in-action-erinn-phelan-selfless-act/

———————————————————————————————————————

Suffering Unleashes Goodness

By Arthur P. Ciaramicoli, Ed.D., Ph.D

A few weeks ago I was talking with one of my patients about his recent release from the hospital where he was treated for a major infection. He was telling me he had to get home to cook the turkey for Thanksgiving. He was bringing the meal to his elderly parents, his mother is recovering from her second bout of breast cancer and his dad is currently struggling with the effects of Leukemia. Joe also mentioned that he invited . . .

Read this and other articles by Dr. Ciaramicoli at http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/author/docapc/

The ACLU on Religious Freedom: Watchdog or Attackdog?

triple-goddess-50 (2) zen_symbol-50 agnusdei-standing-wegast-50  arabic-allah-50sikh-khanda  star4-wegast-50   shinto     lotus_white-50   jain-hand-50    crescent-50   endless-knot-50   Eight_Trigrams-pd   earth-witness-50   dharmachakra-mudra-50   dharma_wheel-50

A child is born neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Muslim, nor atheist, nor an adherent to any other brand of religious or philosophical order. A child is born a human being with an ability to learn, and from this raw material society builds her walls of nationalism and religious certitude. (Thoughts of Professor Hale from the novel, The Empathy Imperative, by Max T. Furr)

Note: The following post concerns a highly emotional subject, the effect of which is an impediment to reason and understanding. Most of us have heard the admonition to never discuss religion and politics with family and friends. Yet, these are the very subjects that must be discussed with family, friends and strangers—with civility, empathy and an open mind—if we are serious about our desire for social harmony and, someday far in the future, world peace.

I believe that most of us can agree that the only path to social harmony is empathy with benevolent reciprocity. Real social harmony cannot happen through organized religion, as I shall explain. Social harmony begins when each individual brings about harmony within himself. This is a difficult task because it is within each individual where we find the strongest impediment to reason and understanding; our genetically based sense of insecurity—an inclination to xenophobia (mistrust or fear of strangers and foreign concepts).

So, how do we begin to remove these impediments to understanding? Each of us must come to understand that this roadblock to reason is what builds our walls of radicalism and self-righteousness in matters of politics and religion.

The first step is to realize that, for most of us, what we believe to be sacred truth was a thing taught to us as from tothood. Had I been born a Muslim, I would most likely still be a Muslim and one of radical persuasion had the environment in my formative years been so inclined. Were I born a Hindu or a Sikh, I would most likely be so today. No matter where I was born, I would have been taught the religious truths of my family and society and I would have believed those truths every bit as fervently as others believe theirs. This is the fundamental understanding we must accept for the sake of reason and empathy. Whether or not one’s religious truths are actually true is not in question here. The only appeal is to understand that they are a function of happenstance of birth.

So, what has the ACLU and other such organizations to do with helping us move beyond our impediments to understanding? The argument I pose above is not one that will meet very many eyes and likely not many open to my reasoning. The very existence of organized religion is to placate our genetically based insecurity. Thus it is most difficult for us to move out of that comfort zone and view other beliefs with objective and empathetic eyes.

It is unfortunate that social harmony—such as it is today—must be imposed by law in every nation on earth. The reason is because of our impediments to understanding and empathy. We do not see eye to eye and often passionately so. This is why we must have laws and organizations that help us move beyond our natural, social and political prejudices.

In the United States, it was the brilliance of our founders that provided our nation the necessary Constitutional tool—a means to help us remove the barriers to understanding. That tool is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Strong resistance to overcoming our walls of self righteousness is to be expected, but those who understand the intent of the clause must continue to use reason and civil debate in its defense. Even in the face of radical Islam we must not let go the means, but embrace it all the more.

It is common for a great many Christians to voice their believe that First Amendment watchdog groups like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are all about destroying or at least suppressing Christianity. Yet these organizations are the protectors of the means—the tool that protects each religion from the overreach of others by providing a peaceful environment conducive to learning and, hopefully, understanding why others believe differently.

Since Christianity is the predominant religion in the United States, I want to point out some facts, some necessarily approximated, that demonstrate what the Establishment Clause has brought about and what the Constitutional watchdog groups protect.

Not counting all other faiths, we have 350,000 Christian churches/congregations in the United States and thousands more in private homes, old business buildings and defunct shopping centers. By comparison, there are 98,706 primary and secondary public schools. There are, therefore, about 3.55 times as many Christian churches as there are public schools in the United States. The congregations worship in peace and no one is denying them that right.

Five hundred-forty dedicated Christian radio stations fire up daily in the U.S. Thousands of others become religious broadcasters on Sunday mornings. There are 49 dedicated Christian television networks broadcasting the messages of  about 55 televangelists. And, the Internet is replete with thousands of religious websites and blogs. No one has ever suggested that any of these be shut down.

We find a Gideon Bible in virtually every hotel/motel room. In secular bookstores, whole sections are dedicated to religion. Drug stores and truck stops have dedicated Christian book racks. Additionally, there are about 8,000 full-blown Christian bookstores. No one is trying to shut these down or force them to add books on science.

The Campus Crusade for Christ flourishes on our college campuses across the nation. Hospitals and some large corporations have chaplains and rooms dedicated to religious worship. No one as far as I know objects to any of this.

Further, religious organizations, including Christian organizations, enjoy tax and zoning exemptions. It is the general public—whether or not they all agree with the various doctrines—who make up the lost tax revenue.

Some religious organizations are even exempt from health and child protection laws (sometimes resulting in child abuse).

As well, students may carry their Bibles to school and/or pray silently most any time (especially before a math test). Students may gather around the flag pole before or after school and pray. Bible clubs are allowed.

Check your local newspaper daily for religious news, messages and service announcements.

So why do First Amendment watchdog groups oppose prayer and proselytizing in public schools and on other public property? Because few student bodies, especially large ones, are religiously homogeneous—not all students were taught the same religion. It is the right of every parent to teach their children the religious beliefs they, themselves, were taught and which they believe to be correct. It is the duty neither of the state, nor any teacher working for the state, nor any elected official to promote a particular religion.

A public school or any other government agency, therefore, may promote neither Christianity, nor Hindu, nor Islam, nor Catholicism, nor Protestantism. The Establishment clause, then, demands government neutrality in matters of religion.

First Amendment watchdog groups, then, are mainly responsible for protecting and promoting, not destroying, the religious freedom of every individual. Such protections promote the peaceful environment necessary for introspection and understanding—a chance for each individual to remove his impediments to personal and social harmony.

sources:

The Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_radio_stations#United_States

AmericanChurchList, Inc.

Digest of Educational Statistics, 1999

Religious Broadcasters on the Internet

Scientology & Dianetics

http://www.edreform.com/2012/04/k-12-facts/

Note: I am open to corrections on any data in this post.

EMPATHY IN POLITICS: Protecting Freedom of Religion

Note: This blog is a spin-off of my novel, The Empathy Imperative, and it is in tune with my social philosophy, which is laid out in the novel. For those who haven’t read my post, “Bringing Down the Walls, One Brick at a Time,” it would be best to read it before reading this post. It will give you a better understanding of my approach to the various issues.

In previous posts, I have written about the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but it is clear that there is a great deal of misunderstanding throughout society about how our U.S. Constitutional rights are protected. Below, I’ve begun a list of sites dealing mostly with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. I will be updating this information (adding to or changing) frequently.

I welcome comments from all sides on any subject.

***

The ACLU Fights for Christians, too

The ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.

This list of FACTS counteracts that misinformation. These links represent just a few of the many examples of the ACLU defending the free speech and free exercise rights of Christians (for purposes of this list, the word “Christian” means a person who self-identifies as “Christian”).

In every example, the ACLU is defending the right of a Christian to speak as a Christian or to practice Christianity.

Find the list of links here: http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

***

ACLU issues warning on Bible distribution in Kentucky

by Associated Press

LEXINGTON, Ky. — The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a letter to superintendents in Kentucky advising them to start following federal guidelines on distributing Bibles at public schools.

The Aug. 19 letter from ACLU attorney William Sharp says districts that don’t abide by the guidelines will face a court challenge.

Follow this link to the story.

***

Muslims Blacklisted for U.S. Citizenship Under Secret Program, Says ACLU

LOS ANGELES — A government program to screen immigrants for national security concerns has blacklisted some Muslims and put their U.S. citizenship applications on hold for years, civil liberties advocates said today.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California said in a report that the previously undisclosed program instructs federal immigration officers to find ways to deny applications that have been deemed a national security concern. For example, they flag discrepancies in a petition or claim they didn’t receive sufficient information from the immigrant.

Follow this like to the full story.

***

ACLU sues to remove Oklahoma 10 Commandments monument

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma has filed a lawsuit seeking to have a monument that bears the Ten Commandments removed from state Capitol grounds.

The Tulsa World reported that the civil liberties group filed suit in Oklahoma County District Court on Monday and names the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission as the defendant.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/aclu-sues-to-remove-oklahoma-10-commandments-monument/?test=latestnews#ixzz2cswCW8mW

***

Conservative Group Files Lawsuit Against N.J. ‘ex-gay’ Therapy Ban

By Chris Johnson on August 22, 2013

A socially conservative group on Thursday filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Jersey that seeks to overturn the state’s ban on widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy that Gov. Chris Christie signed into law this week.

The Liberty Counsel filed the 46-page complaint before the U.S. District Court of New Jersey against Christie, who signed a law on Monday barring sexual orientation conversation therapy for minors within his state, as well as other state officials.

Follow this link to the story.

Understanding the Establishment and Religious Freedom Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Those among us who, with good intentions, want their religious beliefs spread among society with the help of, or complete absence of, government intervention and who believe the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not require the federal government to restrict religious activities from government property have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Thomas Jefferson’s intent in creating the foundation of the Establishment Clause.

While the First Amendment does not explicitly say that there must be a “wall of separation,” its underlying foundation is quite clear. There must be a wall and it must be untraversable in both directions.

In order to understand that this was Jefferson’s intent, it may be necessary for reader to read “The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. This document lays out what Jefferson meant by the term “religious liberty.” Secondly, one should read his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he states that the Establishment Clause has established a wall of separation between church and state. I have provided the texts of both documents below:

——————————————–

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

——————————————–

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Final Letter, as Sent:

———————————————————

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

———————————

Thus, the intent underlying the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Clause is clear; the government must remain neutral in matters of religion.

But, how does this create the right of government to restrict religious activities from public property?

In 1971 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down its decision in  Lemon v. Kurtzman. In that decision, the Lemon Test was established. I will not go into details of the case or the decision, but simply restate the test:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

In a debate recently, my interlocutor implied that the Establishment Clause does not prevent government from establishing “a governmentally endorsed Church.” I pointed out that this assertion flies in the face all three parts of the Lemon Test.

Too, it is argued that the law should not be applied to the states.

The 14th Amendment says that no state may deny any citizen “equal protection under the law.”

Were a State or local government to establish/recognize a particular religion, then it is by that act recognizing an establishment of religion and raising its public status above all others. As well, the government would not be providing its citizens who adhere to other religions (or adhere to no religion at all), equal protection under the law and thus, the government is entangling itself in matters of religion. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS time after time and this is what establishes the government’s obligation to protect the right of all U.S. citizens to have their religious beliefs viewed as equal to all by any governmental organization. Otherwise their status would be unlawfully diminished in their community.

The logic behind disallowing any particular religion to have government endorsement has been established since America was first settled. Our schools tend to leave out certain aspects of this country’s history, leaving students with the impression that when settlers came to this continent to escape religious persecution, they found it. Omission of the details leaves students with a false sense of American Religious history.

Here is probably the first bloody religious conflict on the North American Continent:

Long before the Mayflower sailed, the French, Protestant Huguenots settled in Florida seeking religious freedom. The Catholic Spanish, already there, were incensed. They attacked, overcame the Fort Caroline French colony and then proceeded to hang every person left alive. The reason? As the Spanish commander wrote to King Philip II, “they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these Provinces.”

This was an example of bloody religious intolerance on this continent and there was much more as the centuries past, but I will spare the reader. Such factual history can easily be found online.

Still, even though such warfare no longer occurs in the U.S. (barring radical Islam, of course) there is an incessant cold war fought by Christian fundamentalists against those who understand the Establishment and Religious Freedom clauses of the First Amendment.

Most fundamentalists are open about their desire to promote Christianity in schools, and even Christian creationism in science classes. Many want to eradicate the teaching of evolution altogether. Some fundamentalist teachers impose their views on their students. But do we really want our schools divided, where Christian students and teachers tease and bully the obviously non Christian students (evidence of this can be found online)? Do fundamentalists  really believe Christians have a right to proselytize and coerce non Christian students? Do we want non Christians to remain silent and “go along to get along?” If you are protestant, would you want a Catholic teacher indoctrinating your child or vise versa? How about Wicca or Islam? The Establishment Clause protects all citizens and their children against such insensitivity and intolerance.

Parents of other religions (or no religion) have the right to bring their children up according to the dictates of their conscience without government interference, but with government protection.

Finally, secularism can indeed be carried too far by officials who don’t understand what expressions students are allowed with respect to their religion. I don’t object to–and I don’t think there is any law against–religious clubs in schools holding the same status as philosophy clubs. Such students cannot, however, in any way foster their beliefs on other students and teachers cannot show support for any particular religious club. This means, as well, that Muslim, Wiccan, and atheists students may have their clubs, and all of society may worship in their holy places or not worship at all, according to the dictates of their conscience.

This is true religious freedom, and this is empathy for every citizen’s beliefs in matters of religion, brought to us courtesy of Thomas Jefferson’s Wall of Separation–the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Max T. Furr is author of The Empathy Imperative

Shawn Engel's WitchyWisdoms

Success Magick for the Struggling Entrepreneur

Religion in Public

exploring the mix of sacred and secular

Progressive Graffiti

for left-leaning people and canines

THE ESSAYIST

The sage of Baltimore lives on

Selected Essays and Squibs by Joseph Suglia

The Web log of Dr. Joseph Suglia

Free to express

thoughts, experiences, travel, feelings, stories, diaries and many more...

With My Face To The Rising Sun

Diary Of A Mad God Woman

The Free-Thinking Human

Just Another Former Christian on the Internet

Lama Surya Das

Spiritual Masters of Asia

tripleclicka

perspective at the moment

Friend the Cat

Everyone Needs A Friend.

Toad's Great Adventure

"I will, then, be a toad." -- Stephen Crane

Notes from the U.K.

Exploring the spidery corners of a culture and the weird stuff that tourist brochures ignore.

BroadBlogs

A broad blogs broadly on women’s & men's psychology: sex, relationships, equality

العاب بنات ماهر

العاب بنات ماهر العاب فلاش ماهر ttt4 العاب سيارات ماهر العاب تلبيس بنات ماهر العاب فلاش ماهر 2015

Wary Wonderlust

Losing Ignorance, Finding Awe

My Holistic Table

The Art & Science of Cooking. Recipes free of gluten, sugar, dairy, yeast

The Arm Chair Pontificator

Satirical & Poetic Musings Of A Self-Proclaimed Nobel Prize Winner

A Narcissist Writes Letters, To Himself

A Hopefully Formerly Depressed Human Vows To Practice Self-Approval

Ben's Bitter Blog

"We make bitter better."

All Romance Reads

Get Your Swoon On

richardmarlowe236

Independence and Freedom Blog

%d bloggers like this: