I always read the National Post
It’s important to know your enemy.
And yesterday they featured a
trio of articles on the subject religious freedom -- certainly a hot topic
these days, especially for the religious right.
Yes, a great
deal of ink is being spilled over the vital question: how do we balance human
rights and religious freedom? What if a lesbian wants a man's haircut and a
Muslim barber refuses to give her one? This ‘crucial’ conflict sure sets
tongues a-flappin.’
The latest bunch
of highly controversial issues gracing
the front page of the National Post include: a Muslim woman fighting for the
right to where her niqab in court, a Montreal woman halted from holding mass in
a rented room because of an obscure bylaw, and Canadian Jehovah’s witnesses
fighting for their right to abstain from giving children blood transfusions.
These three burning news items (no other
paper covered them -- with the notable exception of the niqab controversy) were
on the front page of yesterday’s National Post. Last week the National Post was
agog over the possible abolition of ‘Merry Christmas signs’ on Saskatoon buses.
All of this comes hot on the heels of last summer’s spirited debate over
whether or not birth control should be offered as part of ‘Obamacare.’
In each of these instances ‘freedom
of religion’ is pitted against government interference. The implication: we’re
all going to hell in a handbasket, because our governments – and much of the
populace -- have become Christianphobic (I’ll admit it, I am!). As Mike Huckabee recently observed about the massacre at
Sandy Hook – why did Adam Lanza kill those 20 children? Because “God has been
removed from our schools.”
Freedom of
religion has morphed into something scary. The American first amendment “prohibits
the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.” So it looks like the founding American fathers wanted to make sure
folks could worship the God(s) of their choice and speak freely about their
religious beliefs. Sure, makes sense to me. But ‘impeding the free exercise of
religion’ sure is a sticky wicket. Is my freedom to exercise my religion being
impeded when the government demands that I remove my niqab for a trial? Or when
the government uses my tax dollars to pay for abortions?
I would argue: absolutely not.
Regardless of what the American founding fathers meant (who cares
about those slave-holding patriarchal puritans, anyway?) the only religious rights
that count are the right to worship, and the right to speak openly about your
faith. But no one has the ‘right’ to demand that the government pass laws that
take into account their religious beliefs, and no one has a right to disobey
laws because they go against their ‘deeply held religious convictions.’
This may sound brutal. But the alternative is worse. What if your ‘religious
conviction’ is that 50% of all female babies should be killed at birth? What if
your ‘religious conviction’ is that all people of colour should be crucified
and burned? If the government is to going to allow those who demand religious
freedom to tamper with the law then there’s no turning back. Because remember,
one person’s crazy idea is another person’s ‘deeply held belief.’
It’s pretty simple: the North American religious right is
championing the cause of religious freedom in order to kill the separation
between church and state and bring back state sponsored Christianity. If you
doubt this, look back at the three articles in that recent National Post.
Interestingly, the paper comes out firmly
against the issue of women being allowed to wear a niqab in court, but
firmly on the side of the woman who
is told she can’t hold mass in a rented room. In North American religious
freedom means the freedom of Christians to run the government, and our lives.
I’ve always believed that people
should keep their religion to themselves. After all, isn’t it all about what
goes on between you and your God? What business is it of anyone else’s?
If I had my way, religion would be practiced
in private, and sex would be practiced in public.
I think it would make life healthier
and happier for us all.
