This language seems to imply that conscience equals religion. While many individuals find that their religion defines their conscience and their moral compass, there are plenty of individuals for whom this is not true. Atheists, agnostics, and even those who are "spiritual but not religious" are examples of people who do have a conscience and do have a sense of morality, yet have no religion.
Is freedom of conscience then dependent on an individual's adherence to a religious group?
All individuals have a right to freedom of conscience, whether religious or not. When we say we stand for all religions, do we stand for those who have beliefs that are starkly different, or directly oppose our own? Do we stand for those who have no belief at all?
For example, will Latter-day Saints uphold laws that allow individuals to responsibly consume alcohol, even when the LDS Church teaches alcohol consumption is morally objectionable (even when done responsibly)? Now for a more drastic example, will Latter-day Saints fight to allow an Episcopalian individual to marry their same-sex partner (which the Episcopalian Church fully supports) even though the LDS Church teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong at a moral level?
Furthermore, why would we need an individual to be Episcopalian in order to protect their freedom of conscience in this particular case? Isn't it enough to have a conviction that your action is good for your own life and that it will not harm anyone (and I am talking marriage here, so if you comment PLEASE do not talk about adoption)? Why is the conscience of a "non-religious" individual not protected--or rather seen as a threat to the conscience of the "religious" individual?
Watch the first few seconds of this video. Again, we equate religion to morality or conscience and we make the grave mistake of believing that those who choose not to be affiliated with a religion are amoral. This is obviously not the case.
The problem here is that we are falling in a language trap, and unfortunately, it is one that we cannot escape from. The U.S. Constitution established on its First Amendment, the "free exercise [of religion]." However, this Amendment makes no mention of conscience. This makes it sound like the Mormon Church is, according to the U.S. Constitution, right--at least when equating religion to conscience.
What does this mean to the non-religious? Are we protecting their freedom of conscience as well? Should the atheists/agnostics/non-religious then become affiliated with a religion that mostly matches their conscience so that their moral convictions and consciousness can be taken as seriously as those affiliated with a religion? If there is no such religion, should they start their own?
Did those who draft the Bill of Rights intend for us to equate religion with conscience? Should we start using the word conscience instead of religion? Is religion an institution or the moral compass of an individual, according to the U.S. Constitution? Should we revise the First Amendment and have it say something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of conscience or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"
This is one thing I do not understand.
Good post. I had to read it a couple times to take it all in.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts:
1) I don't think "freedom of conscious" is the same thing as "having a conscious." Pesky English. I believe the first basically means freedom to believe whatever you want, religious or otherwise. The second is closer to what you were defining conscious as, but I don't think that's the way the LDS church was using it.
2) The alcohol question is a good one. I think if a religion is going to take a political stand on an issue, the burden of proof is on the religion to show that the issue they are fighting for has some sort of demonstrable effect on society (either positive or negative) that is not religious in nature. It is not enough to just say, "because God said so." I think if laws limiting alcohol consumption are shown to be a net positive to society, then I say go for it. The problem with the fight against same-sex marriage is that other than saying "God said so," the non-religious moral arguments against it are pretty terrible.
3) The First Amendment has two things about religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
The establishment clause is important and one that most right-wing Christians ignore. You will often here things like "We were founded as a Christian nation." No, we weren't. We were founded as a secular nation. Christian nations existed in the European monarchies the American colonists were trying to escape from. So we are not "becoming a secular nation." We always have been one. And we should be proud of it. This prevents the government from forcing you to practice any particular religion.
The second part says that the government may not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Once again, this is all it says. Many religions, including the LDS church, have equated religious freedom with being protected from denigrating speech against your religion. This type of speech is protected in the First Amendment. Religions will always be free to admit whoever they want or say whatever they want. Yes, it will probably become increasingly socially unacceptable to be opposed to same-sex marriage. The government has no control over this. This is just the evolution of public opinion. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. then you most likely suffer the social consequences of that. Many companies will probably not want to hire you. That's just life. Your religious freedom is not being suppressed. You are still free to hold whatever religious views you want. Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
I think the distinction you're looking for is in the thought process that to truly have religious freedom people must also have the right to refrain from any type of religious belief/action. Atheists/agnostics/non-religious people have the right to think/act (or refuse to think/act) however they want as long as their actions are within the law. If they felt the need to have their own "legally recognized religion" I don't see why they couldn't. "The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment." So, in order to be legally recognized as a religion they would need to show how a sincere belief in something (or against something, or somewhere in between) has created a certain moral compass for them. If that were established, I don't see why they couldn't be recognized as a religion.
ReplyDelete