The Next Best Thing: Religious Freedom in America

According to Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, freedom is defined as, "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint". Yet other prominent thinkers beg to differ. The very notion of possessing the ability to practice any religion you wish without any interference may seem like a human right which is granted to us upon birth. Obviously, this does not hold to be true. About every country in the world limits their citizens' amount of religious freedom in one way or another. However, it is impossible to accommodate all religions equally; the best we can hope for in terms of religious freedom is full freedom for the majority religion and tolerance for everyone else. This would not only include practice in the private life, but also acts of religion significance within the public sphere.

Right now many folks adopt a view religious tolerance, rather than religious freedom. Religious tolerance allows people the right to practice a particular religion outside of the realm of government, and prohibits them from bringing anything of even remote religious significance into the public sector. This is not, as we shall see, what the founders of our country had in mind. The founders of our country recognized the importance of religious freedom, as opposed to simple religious tolerance.

In a pluralistic society such as the United States is today, one will unquestionably ask, "Which religion? There are so many. Should even Satanists be allowed to bring their religion into government?" To answer briefly, no. "Religion" is here defined as some aspect of predominant religion in the history of the Western Europe. Since that is where the progenitors of our Constitutional framers originated, those are the traditions that were primarily carried over. We note many instances of historical religious devotion within the realm of government at the time of the founding of our great republic, but all of them stem from some aspect of a predominant Western religion. Whether we look at Sunday being recognized as a day of rest, or proclamations of thanksgiving, or the hiring of chaplains, they all pertain to some aspect of significant Western faith. Even as we don't allow religions which are inherently immoral or corrupt to practice unchecked in this country, so we should we not blatantly allow any twisted philosophy, no matter how bizarre or perverted, to have a seat at the state's table.

This is not to say that people of non-Western faiths are not allowed to practice their faiths within the United States, but rather to simply make the case that we know of no historical precedent for United States government involvement with non-mainstream or pagan religions. Religious devotions in the United States government are virtually always dedicated to the God of significant Western monotheism (e.g., "In God We Trust" on our currency, "God save the United States and this honorable court" at the beginning of Supreme Court sessions).

One may take this argument to be one which puts down one religion and promotes another; this is precisely the case. To claim that a nation can accommodate every religion equally, to attain "true" religious freedom, is indeed a bold statement. Both history and reality prove that no such government has existed, or will exist. Many have tried: China by means of communism, France by disregarding religion as a whole, or the United Sates, who simply claim to offer religious. So rather than struggle to create this perfect state, why not come as close as possible: a nation which grants full religious freedom to the majority religion.
Great political thinker, Bruno Bauer, has put forth a radical, yet semi-rational formula to cure us from this disease. The disease can be defined as any form of discrimination, with symptoms such as religion, race, gender, class, etc. He believed that if we abolish these symptoms from the governmental sphere, and only keep them private, then the government will have nothing to do with religion and therefore be truly neutral toward every religion. As superior as this arrangement may seem, it has numerous faults. Ultimately, government is usually based on religious beliefs and practices because that's what religion is; a "government" for our life. So to assume that eliminating religion from private life will eventually lead to a religiously neutral government is beyond doubt a contradiction in and of itself.

Furthermore, Bauer fails to address the fact that humans are controlling by nature. We must ask ourselves: "Why would America push the Christians into equality with everyone else?" "Why would Israel make the Jews as free as everyone else?" "Why would Saudi Arabia give priority to those other than Muslims?" No one who is part of the majority religion would be willing to be treated like everyone else unless they are of a minority religion. No one would give up their power, prestige, or wealth just to be like everyone else. This is a major factor that Bauer covers up by saying that the state can be religiously neutral and so refute particular privileges to the minority.

Another well-known political theorist, Karl Marx, can be said to "complete" Bauer's plan to religious freedom, in a sense. Marx believed that the cure is not only to rid the state of religion, but to rid the peoples' private lives from religion as well; thus eradicating religion as a whole. This idea may seem quite fundamental, but Marx believed that religion itself was just a superstition. Mark argued that in order to cure a disease, one must not attack the symptoms; but the disease as a whole. By abolishing religion, Marx believes that all citizens in a state will be considered equal. To argue this is to argue that an aristocrat would be willing to give up their position for the sake of equality; which is clearly not true. Consequently, Marx does address this issue. He realizes this and suggests that the minority, proletariat, must hold a revolution against the aristocrats, bourgeoisie. When the proletariat revolt, the bourgeoisie will be forced to abandon their "rank", willingly or unwillingly. Marx believes that the revolution will not only push the people back into an egalitarian society, but will also do away with religion. Marx thinks this will happen because he considers religion a byproduct of class stratification, like any other prejudice. However, this is all unfathomable. By forcing everyone into an egalitarian society, they are not equal. It will only be a true egalitarian society if everyone is willing to cooperate and wants to be equal. Anything less than this is forcing something upon somebody, which solves nothing.

Another example of faults in Marx's argument is the Republic of China's communism. This nation is based on the eradication of religion from both state and private life. Ideally, this situation is perfect for people who have no emotions or do not care to think for themselves. Yet we Americans consider communism a suppressor of all freedoms, even though it is not. Communism simply gets rid of the symptoms- discrimination, such as race, gender, and religion. So getting rid of any factors that make us unequal is not to make us free. It is merely an attempt to make everyone the absolute same. Human beings are all unique. It is these differences that make us who we are. The government cannot regulate the peoples' personalities, or what they believe in, so communism is an inconsiderate attempt to create "equality". However, communism can only work in way situation: where the people truly believe that we must all be equal and are willing to give up their "rank" -in whatever shape or form it takes-, then communism would not be shunned the way it is presently shunned by western thought. Conversely, human nature prevents us from doing this.

Religious tolerance is the norm for the modern day definition of religious freedom. Instead of allowing everybody to practice equally, we humans have created an amount of religious practices that we can "put up with". In Moruzzi's "A Problem with Headscarves", Moruzzi tells the story of an instance in France, in which three Muslim, female, high school students were ordered to remove their scarves upon entry of any classroom. The three women did not conform to the demands and were suspended from the institution. The state of France has a policy where nobody can express any form of public religious practice in state institutions with the exception of small amulets which may be discreetly shown. This is Bauer's ideal state, where the government is free from religion yet the private sphere is allowed to practice freely. But this policy significantly contradicts itself. What exactly is a public religious practice? The only complete day French students have to rest is Sunday, the day of Sabbath for the Christians; the major religion of France. Can this be a form of public religious practice? To the Christians and the secularists, this is not. We must ask ourselves, "What if covering of the head was considered to be the secular norm?" Would Christians and Jews not oppose this? France claims to be a secular state, but evidently it caters more advantage to the major religion. We can see from this example that a secular state can never exist. Every religion can never be accommodated equally, and even if there was a way to do this, somebody would create a religion and claim religious discrimination; per human nature. However, France's real problem is not granting religious advantages to the major religion, as this is perfectly reasonable from any state, but to declare themselves a truly secular state.

Individually, as a Muslim I do not totally agree to the fact that a non-Islamic prayer is read before Supreme Court sessions. I also find it hard to cope with the fact that the national days off are Saturday and Sunday, the Sabbath of the Jews and the Christians, respectively. But there is absolutely nothing I can do about it; I am not of the majority religion. Yet I am still thankful and very understanding that I am free to go to any other country which accommodates me. One might opt to argue that I have just as much religious freedom as anyone else; this is untrue, and I am perfectly fine with this. Each nation has its majority religion, and the government conforms to it. Ask this: "Can one build a Church in Saudi Arabia?" Absolutely not. "Can one build a Mosque in the Vatican?" As human beings we will never be able to have complete religious freedom, but why not settle for the next best thing?

Reference List:

Bauer, Bruno On Religious Freedom
Marx, Karl On the Social Contract
Moruzzi, Miriam A Problem with Headscarves