Freedom of Which Religion?

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

When the First Amendment was drafted, the United States was almost exclusively Christian.  Many of the states had an established religion and religious tests to hold office.  New England was established by a persecuted religious group who fled England two centuries before: The Puritans.  Pennsylvania was founded by a Quaker.  Virginia was Anglican.  The Scotch-Irish of the Carolinas were Presbyterians.  The Founders were aware of the diversity - being themselves members of the various denominations of Christianity - and also knew of the catastrophic wars that had torn through Europe.  In fact, Europe still had state-established religions.  The First Amendment addressed that directly, offering a live and let live solution to the frequent hostility among the various flavors of Christianity.  However, they never considered Hinduism, Islam, Voodoo, Satanism, or various other faiths.  Why would they?  And that was an oversight.

Islam is not compatible with the US Constitution.  If a majority of the citizens of the United States were to become Muslim, the Constitution would necessarily be discarded as against the Koran and failing to adhere to Sharia.  Remember, when the First Amendment was adopted, Islam and Christianity had been at war for more than a thousand years.  Islam was anathema to Western Civilization.  Why would anyone think that Islam would be openly integrated into a Western nation via an 18th Century amendment written for the governing of a universally Christian country?

Obviously, the history here is irrelevant.  The Supreme Court will not limit what religions are covered by the Freedom of Religion clause.  Well, maybe Pastafarianism.  The Founding Fathers did not foresee a time when uncontrolled migration would change the religious landscape.  Case in point, the huge influx of Catholics in the 19th Century was tumultuous because the US was a Protestant country.  This saw the rise of Nativism, which was an anti-Catholic movement in the mid-19th Century, most notably against the Irish.  Why would a different version of Christianity be such a problem?  Because they held allegiance to a foreign prince: the Pope.  As late as JFK - the first Catholic president - there were concerns that the Pope would determine US policies from Rome.

Western Civilization is dependent upon Christianity.  It is one of the primary foundations.  If it goes, so goes Western Civilization.  The West needs to prevent incompatible belief systems from taking hold.  It may be too late for some Western nations.

A Game of Chicken

Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, declared that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the traditional definition.  Chick-fil-A does not deny services to gays or refuse to hire them though Mr. Cathy does support causes that hold his values. It was no surprise that this stance provoked a backlash from those who want gay marriage.  That is not unusual and hardly newsworthy.  What made it newsworthy was when mayors across the country declared their displeasure with Mr. Cathy and announce their intent to block him from opening stores in their jurisdiction.  Mayor Emanuel of Chicago declared that Mr. Cathy did not share the values of Chicago (President Obama, himself from Chicago, agreed with Mr. Cathy until 3 months ago) and was therefore not welcome.  The mayors of Boston and San Francisco said much the same.   This is what made the story big news.  Elected politicians were discriminating on the basis of religion.

In response to attacks by government, citizens showered support on the company.  The reaction to this was puzzling.  Shepard Smith of Fox News called it the National Day of Intolerance.  Some have compared those who supported the company with those who stood against integration in the 60s.  As with the contraceptive issue that struck the churches recently, the defender has been transformed into the aggressor.  Mr. Cathy and all those who supported Chick-fil-A are being painted as hate-filled bigots because they don't embrace gay marriage.  As for the comparison with the Civil Rights movement, black pastors across the country are vocally denouncing the comparison.  Gays are not sitting in the back of the bus, being sent to separate bathrooms and water fountains, being set upon by police dogs or blasted with fire hoses, or denied voting rights.  The Civil Rights argument only works on those who don't know history.

Who is intolerant?  Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against gays.  Those who support traditional marriage aren't calling for Jim Crow laws against gays.  They are willing to tolerate gays though not embrace gay marriage.  On the other side, we have mayors who want to punish those who voice support for traditional marriage.  A man in Tucson, AZ, berated a Chick-fil-A employee at the drive-thru window and posted it on YouTube.  Someone painted graffiti on a Chick-fil-A that said 'Taste the Hate.'  So which of these groups tolerates differing beliefs and which doesn't?

The War on Women

There is much talk of the Republican War on Women. When was this war declared? How did it come about? What kind of idiot politician declares war on half of his potential voters?

As part of the evolving healthcare law, the Obama administration announced that religious institutions would be required to offer birth control in the health insurance plans they offered. This, of course, is in direct opposition to the beliefs of these institutions. The government was saying that they must sin against their religion or be in violation of the law. This is clearly stepping on the First Amendment 'free exercise' provision. Unsurprisingly, the religious institutions complained. Republicans came out in defense of religious freedom.

Now the spin. Democrats cry out that Republicans have declared a war on women's reproductive rights. Republicans want to deny women contraception. Sandra Fluke testifies that her friends at a Catholic college are going broke trying to pay contraceptive bills. To make the story fly better, the administration provides for an 'accommodation' in which the insurance companies are required to provide contraception coverage at no cost.

It is a clever move. Suddenly, religious liberty is forgotten and now all the reports are about Republicans against contraception. It isn't true but it plays well in the press. The Obama administration started the conflict and then spun it after the fact to make it seem that it is on defense from a Republican attack. A cooperative media makes that possible.

The status of women and contraception would not change one bit with the Republican policy. They are standing for no change. It is Obama that wants change and his change is to deny religious freedom. The accommodation is a trick. Insurance companies can't supply anything for free so they will raise rates on all policies to pay for this 'freebie.' So, the religious institutions are still paying, it just doesn't show up on the bill.