It seems like this election season “religious liberty” is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.
I’m a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I’ve come up with this little quiz. I call it “How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty is at Threat in Just Ten Quick Questions.” Just pick “A” or “B” for each question.
Question One
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A)I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.
Question Two
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
Question Three
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.
Question Four
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
Question Five
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
Question Six
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read, or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies, and websites that I do not like.
Question Seven
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings, and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
Question Eight
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.
Question Nine
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.
Question Ten
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.
Scoring key:
If you answered “A” to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality…not your superiority.
If you answered “B” to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.
In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Well said! If only we could everyone to understand that religious liberties apply to everyone!
Reblogged this on Inside the Atheists Studio and commented:
We spend a lot of time pointing out things religionists get wrong, but we should be quick to point out when they get it right. Here is a Christian who understands that religious liberties extend beyond the Cristian faith.
Yes, thank you for putting in terms that I can explain to others! You’ve said it so much better than I could.
Well spoken if you don’t truly care about religious liberty. I understand your underpinning of your own beliefs and even your probable dissent of the beliefs of other “religious”, but you have left the door open for oppression of the right of anyone of faith by watering down the crux of the matter to those that serve your own politics.
J, please provide your full name or your comment will be deleted. That’s the only rule I have for commenting here.
You’ve managed to write 3 lines without saying anything at all. Care to elaborate?
In regards to ‘J’ -I was thinking the same thing. And I reread it 4 times.
Their should be a “c” choice to all of those questions:
1c no one is allowed to go to any religious service.
2c I am forced to publicly recognize a union that directly conflicts with my own personal beliefs.
3c i am not allowed to use birth controll.
4c I am not allowed to pray publicly yet others are allowed to display their personal beliefs publicly.
5c being a member of my faith subjects me to unfair and often personally invading “random” checks at airports, and other public places.
6c I’m not allowed to read or share my religious books publicly.
7c other religious groups are allowed to utilize public buildings etc that my religious group is not.
8c My country was founded upon traits of a particular faith and my religion conflicts with many of those laws and principles.
9c any religious community wants to build a minument or sanctuary on the sight of another religions sacred ground. Purely for disrespectful reasons.
10c public schools teach theory as fact and deny the cultural beliefs of the origin of the universe emberaced by 80% of the world in favor of these unproved theories.
First off Arorra, it’s not their, it’s there. Second, scientific definition of theory is not the same as the laymans definition of theory. Third, I believe the rules here are that you must include your entire name in your post.
Arorra:
1c Fortunately, this is not the case in this country (assuming we are talking about the USA)
2c No one is forcing you to recognize anything publicly. The state may recognize interracial marriages, but you’re free deny the existence of those unions if you please.
3c Are there places where this might be the case?
4c I don’t know of any laws preventing any member of any faith from doing that.
5c Fair point.
6c See 4c.
7c Though unlawful, I suspect that this unfortunately occurs in some places.
8c (Again, assuming we’re talking about the US) I would disagree that this country was founded upon any particular religious “traits,” though I’m not clear what is meant by that. Regardless, the rule of law cannot possibly be in harmony with everyone’s religious ideals if you mean to allow all those religious ideals to exist. This is why we have a secular constitution and why it’s important for laws to have a secular basis.
9c I’m afraid I don’t know what this is referring to.
10c “Fact” and “theory” are not mutually exclusive in a scientific sense. Scientific theories do not “graduate” into facts. Theory is the best there is. Therefore, I see no problem with teaching the germ THEORY of disease in science classrooms. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its accuracy. Science is based on evidence, not on what fits best with your presuppositions.
I agree that this article was likely written by a liberal. But, being fairly liberal myself, I agreed with it anyway. Until it got to this question:
B. My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings, and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
Then later, the article said,
If you answered “B” to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others.
Huh? So if a Christian group wants to use a public building, (Which is, you know, for the public) then that is oppressing others? Are Christians not members of the public now? In fact, if a Christian group is banned from using a public building that is available for any other group to use, that is discrimination. And that has happened, apparently with this author’s blessing. Holy wow. Of course, the article could mean Christians taking over a public building and not letting anyone else use it. Except that’s not what it said at all.
Would you feel the same way if it was a Jewish group or a Muslim group or an Atheist group that wanted to use the building? If so, good for you, but I believe many self proclaimed Christians would not. I believe the key here in the question is the clarifier “for whatever purposes we might like”. I have no problems with religious groups wanting to use publicly funded buildings for their functions, but they should bear the same costs as secular groups that want to use them. I get tired of hearing “we are a non profit” so we shouldn’t have to pay. Public buildings cost money to maintain and operate and the users should bear those costs.