Tyranny Over Religion
The ongoing flap—hardly a debate—over the Ground Zero Mosque has elicited the response (as predictable as it is erroneous) that to deny a building permit to Muslims would a) violate the First Amendment and b) abridge the freedom of religion that belongs to every human being by virtue of natural law, divine will, or whatever justification you wish to invent. The inevitable reductio ad absurdum of this argument was reached in Oklahoma, where a group of Satanists is going to stage a blasphemy in the main hall of the Oklahoma City Civic Center. They cannot be denied a permit because that would infringe their religious freedom.
Whenever one of these controversies erupts, there are only two sides in the public form. the Hard Left—whether Marxists, Libertarians, or Multi-Culturalists—take their stand on freedom of religion, while the Soft Left (otherwise known as Conservatives) say that while there is a freedom of religion, it does not quite extend to Satanists or Muslims wanting to build a mosque at Ground Zero, though a mosque anywhere else is just fine and dandy.
Let me put my cards on the table. The First Amendment does not impose a universal right to religious freedom within the United States but only forbids the Congress (and by implication the President and the Courts if they pretend to be legislators) to interfere in the exercise of religion or set up a national church. We have a national church--that goes without saying--in the education establishment, but that is another question.
Any conservative, that is any soft-leftist, who knows anything about the Constitution will agree with this first point, though they may be under the delusion that the 14th Amendment has something to say about religion, but where they are sure to be enraged is with my second point, which is this: There is not only no natural or rational or god-given right to religious freedom, but, what is more, the whole idea is entirely bogus. Freedom of religion is nothing other than a weapon, forged by the Enlightenment Left, in their unremitting campaign to extirpate Christianity.
What, some blockheaded Norwegian is sure to exclaim, are you arguing for theocracy? Of course not. There is an infinite set of possibilities spanning the gap between complete freedom of religion and theocracy. The Romans had a state religion but permitted most unofficial or alien cults but with many exceptions or restrictions. The cult of Dionysus was proscribed because it encouraged licentiousness and the Senate, on a famous occasion, condemned violators of the ban to death, though it instructed their families to carry out the sentence. Druidism was forbidden, not only because the Druids practiced human sacrifice but probably also because the priests were the intellectual and political leaders of Celtic resistance. Judaism was licit, and because of their rules on sabbath observance Jews were not forced to serve in the army. Christianity was outlawed for several reasons: The founder of the religion had been put to death as a traitor or leader of a rebellion, and his followers were accused by their Jewish neighbors of a variety of crimes--sex orgies and human sacrifice. Some alien cults that many Romans found distasteful were permitted but restricted. No Roman could become a priest of Cyble/Magna Mater, because priests had to be mutilated, and their public activities were restricted to a certain time of the year. Augustus ruled that Egyptian cult could not be celebrated in Rome itself, and there were periodic deportations of soothsayers and philosophers.
But no major commonwealth has probably ever been so tolerant of religious diversity. The polytheistic Romans believed you could not have too many gods, potentially, on your side, and Tiberius is said even to have proposed the inclusion of Christ in the Roman pantheon. (Obviously non-Christian scholars do not believe this, but it is perfectly possible. Tiberius would have liked that bit about "my kingdom is not of this world" and welcomed a sect of Judaism, as he would have regarded it, that was not likely to start another rebellion.) But their generous toleration had limits, and cults that threatened security or offended against Roman taste or morals were either restricted or banned outright.
A man would be very foolish who thought that Christians, once given the right to practice their religion openly, would be eager to tolerate rival religions. Unlike Roman pagans, Christians believed they had a monopoly on truth and despised all other religions as the worship of demons. They were, however, wise enough to grab much of the best that paganism had to offer: Roman marriage customs and festivals and the Greek philosophical tradition. The result was that Christianity escaped its narrowly parochial Jewish origins--and the mean-spirited law that condemned parts of the creation as unclean. Ordinary Christians were able to savor the festival joys--suitably christened-- that pagan religions offered, and theologians availed themselves of the wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus.
Between Constantine and Theodosius the Church grew and prospered--except for the fortunately brief reign of Julian--and the somewhat bigoted Theodosius outlawed other religions, though it would take some time for intellectuals to give up their philosophies and ordinary people to renounce all their old ways.
Enough history. Religious freedom is a gift of a society or commonwealth, not a natural right. This is partly because religion is not faith--what one believes or feels--but an organized public action. Thus the public or republic has the right and duty to protect itself from alien or malignant cults. In a diverse Christian society, naturally, the various churches have had to learn to tolerate each other, though in practice toleration is generally a sign of indifference. Church becomes that thing you do or don't do on one day a week. It is like the beautiful jewel you take out of the box every once in a while to admire and feel good about yourself for owning. But religion is more like a wedding ring, a visible symbol of an enduring commitment.
The painful truth is that serious Catholics and serious Calvinists cannot live together without sacrificing a good deal of their religion. Christians can only co-exist with Jews on a basis of toleration, that is, the Christian majority agrees to put up with an alien religion so long as the adherents behave themselves. But Satanists? Muslims? The idea of Christians according religious freedom to Muslims who define themselves in part by their hatred of Christianity and who have oppressed Christians whenever they have had the power to do so, is preposterous. It is worse than preposterous, because the point of the exercise is not to liberate Muslims but to enslave Christians.
I could say much more, and I shall in my November essay in Chronicles. In the meantime, I am happy to develop the argument in response to queries and constructive criticism.
Entries(RSS)
The polytheistic Romans believed you could not have too many gods, potentially, on your side, and Tiberius is said even to have proposed the inclusion of Christ in the Roman pantheon.
Dear Mr. Fleming. Thanks for resurrecting (pun intended)that too little known historical tidbit.
I remember reading about that long ago (maybe in "The Catechism of Perseverance") and I recall that part of the argument for the inclusion of Jesus in the Pantheon was based upon the evidence presented in "The Acts of Pontius Pilate," who, among other things, was a dutiful record keeper.
Mr Sanjay and Sempronius, thank you both very much.
The crux of the matter is that some want to give total freedom to a movement that will eventually, once vigorous enough, remove all religious freedom for anyone except its own.
Mohamatenism is about militant global evangelisation and submission of all to his faith system or face Hell on earth and in their version of the afterlife.
Bury your head in the sand with as much indifference as you want that is the underscored objective.
As ardor and passion fade and curl, and self evident truth tumbles to earth before the cold wind, the men of battle return to hearth and toil. Their leaders are silenced. Exposed and isolated. Left alone with their honesty and quiet words.
The public ones carry on in the warm places, making friends with former enemies, making enemies of former friends, making love to wives of former friends and enemies, just making it happen. They feel the hunger of their need, but do not see the hunger that stains the land.
Maybe they need glasses.
If a religion truly was established by God and hence represents God's plan, then this should be recognized by any government of the people. This seems emminently logical.
It doesn't appear logical for a God to establish any number of different religious creeds with different and conflicting teachings, unless one wanted to believe God's purpose in so doing was to demonstrate tolerance as the supreme virtue. But while a little tolerance is the oil that prevents social friction, a lot of tolerance invariably leads to indiffernce and license.
Is it possible that only one religion is the true religion, since there are so many religions making that claim? This reminds me of the TV program in which three people claimed to be the real Mr. Soandso, and the panel was to guess which of the three was the actual person. The point is that while any number of people might claim to be Mr. Soandso, this did not mean there was no real Mr. Soandso.
Having so many different religions poses a problem for the governing of that people that does not exist where a people have mainly one particular religion. Modern governments have come up with the solution to this in separating religion from government. This ignores the basic consideration that if one religion is the true religion, then it should be reflected in the government. Separation of Church from the State seemed to work for a while. Now though the problems inherent in this scheme are coming to the fore. This scheme assumes there is no one true religion established by God, but if contrary to our current consensus there is one religion established by God, then it is logical that this scheme will not work over time. So there we are. We are finding that separating Church from State is the source of many evils. Actually I can understand why Muslim countries do not want to allow any other religious belief. They are being logical even if their religion is defective.
Key mahomaten text from the "Quran" for those who think the religion encourages peaceful coexistence.
Quran, Sura 9, verse 29:
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
And to those who claim Christianity does the same as mahometanism -
Remember Our Blessed Lord Jesus called on His disciples to turn the other cheek; stated that to live by the sword was the recipe for death by the sword; forgave his persecutors & detractors and invoked blessings on His enemies in exchange for their curses. Read The Gospels and find out.
Nowhere in the Quran will you read such a pacific tone. Its register is unyielding, harsh and unforgiving.
Wessexman writes:
"This is because it is not simply, in this view, the rational precept that we should not steal for instance that helps to instill this virtue in a society(though we shouldn’t downplay the importance of such precepts.) but the way this figures in the mythology of the society and how this mythology interacts with the factors that makes up society in order to reinforce this morality, both rationally and unconsciously.
Now Islam, though it may share many of the basic moral precepts of Christianity, obviously has a very different mythology and tradition and hence these values will have distinct interactions with social associations and the factors that make them up compared with Christianity."
Hey thanks, now I understand Ali Baba And The Forty Thieves.
" these values will have distinct interactions with social associations and the factors that make them up"
One soon discovers those "interactions" when one lives and works in a mahomaten society of the genre promised to us graphically and aggressively by adherent demonstrators overseas and at home. May it not be so in our society as they threaten it will be soon!
Robert Charron, you make interesting points but there are some other options. For instance it could be that a particular revelation or religion represents a collective intellection(in the Platonic sense.) for a culture or society, or in other words a collective, organic, divinely ordained set of doctrines, symbolism, morals and so forth to provide for the spiritual support of the society or culture. These genuine revelations would then reflect the one truth at a higher, esoteric or transcendental level being one, coming from the single divine truth, but in disparate ways aat the outer, exoteric levels according to culture and ethnic differences. This is the position that Perennialists and Traditionalists like Frithjof Schuon take and it does solve the problem of multiple religions and how a single faith like Christianity could be correct when it is so late in history and in only one portion of the earth.
LeonG, the thing is a lot of the arguments made against Islam are modernist arguments. Traditional Muslims have been reasonably tolerant of Christian and Islamic minorities, certainly no less tolerant of such minorities as traditional Christian societies. There is little point in having such a discussion unless we really decide the traditionalist position and where we fall on religious and personal freedom and such because as I said a lot of the critiques of traditional Islam(to be differentiated from the modernist fundamentalism Islam.) are replete with modernist and liberal assumptions.
"Hey thanks, now I understand Ali Baba And The Forty Thieves."
And Robin Hood I hope Gilbert
.