Freedom FROM Religion

Warning: Serious discussion ahead...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."--The beginning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment is pretty clear on the subject of religion: The Congress is forbidden from making any laws favoring a specific religion, nor any laws prohibiting a religion. Yet this doesn't seem to prevent religious conservatives from trying.

Lately, they have been working the state governments to get their religious views enacted as laws. While that is perfectly legal under the Constitution, is it right under God's law?

If you are anti-religious, I beg your indulgence on this topic. Since the religious conservatives are overwhelmingly Christian, I go to the Bible for this one:

"And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."--Matthew 22:16-21  

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."--Matthew 22:36-40

Feel free to disagree with me, but to me, Christ's words are the Christian theological version of the U.S. Constitution: All other laws have to heed Christ's laws, or else they don't apply, just like all U.S. laws have to take a secondary place to the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments. Christ himself put those last two laws above, over all others, including such laws as "render unto Caesar".

As for Caesar, in the Ancient Roman Empire, in which Christ lived, Caesar WAS the government. That is the nature of dictators and emperors. But we live in a democracy, ergo we are ALL Caesar.

Christ's first law to love God is a pretty broad stroke, but he makes it easy for us by separating it from Caesar: Our duty to Caesar is separate from our duty to God.

This is where it gets tricky: If we are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and Caesar is us, then what is our duty there?

This is where I see Christ's second law applying: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." You are to render unto our "collective Caesar" what it demands of us. However, we have a say in what the collective Caesar requires, or even gives away. But "WE THE CAESAR" still have to abide by the "love thy neighbor" law, even in our actions as the collective Caesar. If you vote for someone who promises to hurt your neighbor, are you not complicit in that immoral act? I would say yes.

I interrupt this deep theological discussion to applaud Georgia Governor Nathan Deal once more (I did this post applauding him once before). From the AJC.com:

Gov. Nathan Deal said the uproar in North Carolina and Mississippi over new laws that critics say curb gay rights should give supporters of the “religious liberty” measure in Georgia second thoughts, and warned that he’s willing to pull out the veto pen again next year if similar legislation lands on his desk. 

In his first interview since his veto two weeks ago of House Bill 757, Deal said Tuesday he’s concerned religious conservatives who plan to revive the measure next year will put Georgia through another contentious debate. 

“I don’t want to go through the same process all over again. I’ve made my position very clear. I tried to write a very thoughtful veto message,” he said. “It expressed my concerns and it expressed my reasons for vetoing it. And those reasons won’t change in my mind.”

I won't attempt to judge what thought process got Governor Deal to the right choice (Luke 6:37!). But what he did was true to Christian laws, as well as the American tradition of freedom of religion. Or should we call it freedom FROM religion? To be honest, either way is correct.

When Christians, or followers of any religion, try to tell all of us how we should live our lives or what we should do or not do, without consideration for what the rest of us believe, there is a phrase for this: Religious intolerance. Here is an example:

(hat tip to Quotesgram for the pic)

Before you say, "But how can you compare flying an airplane into a building with passing a law which preserves a person's freedom of association?", I would ask you how far are you willing to go to protect that baker's right to not make a gay wedding cake? Are you willing to kill someone over it? Remember, that is the ultimate threat which allows our government to enforce it's laws. Don't believe me? Why do cops carry guns? Heck, they don't even have to carry a gun to kill you sometimes: Consider Eric Garner, who was choked to death by cops enforcing a cigarette tax. Do you think that was worth dying over?

Before you pass a law, you have to ask yourself one question: Would I be willing to see someone killed to enforce this law? If the answer is no, then you need to reconsider the law. If the answer is yes, you may need to reconsider your religious views.