The Monday Sermon: Is Freedom Of Religion A Blessing ...Or A Curse?

The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate. It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with. Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government."

- Mitt Romney, speaking at the commencement exercises of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University


Social conservatives (aka the Christian Right) have been vocal about Freedom of Religion within political circles - freedom to practice the Christian religion as the One True religion and the freedom to participate in politics. For without their involvement in government, they think they might lose their freedom of religion. In order to participate in politics, they argue, there must be no separation of church and state. One article of the First Amendment must, in essence, negate the other. Yes, it's rather confusing, but we're dealing with an entity that deals with ill reasoning and confusion on a daily basis.

Which Religion Should Have The Right?

Freedom of Religion sounds like a right. It is. So is the freedom NOT to have any particular spiritual belief. But freedom of religion, like everything else involved in the socio-political sphere depends upon which religion is the dominant one. If that religion is truly tolerant of other religions, then everyone will have both freedom to believe in any moral/spiritual code they wish and the freedom to PRACTICE that code. The latter may be called Free Exercise. 

It can be safely said, therefore, that while the Christian Right says they are for freedom of religion, they are, in fact, for freedom to believe and practice Christianity only. Yes, we see the religious intolerance everywhere: 

- "Ex-Homosexual" DL Forster has stated flatly that there is no such thing as a gay Christian. His ministry Witness Ministries, maintains a website that considers itself a watchdog against any churches or organizations that accept gays.

- C. Peter Wagner, founder of New Apostolic Reformation movement, warns about "heathen" idols. Hence, he goes about smashing Native American artifacts and statues of Catholic saints.

- Pastor John Benefiel posits that the Statue of Liberty is an idol and some of his adherents have called for its demolition.

- Pastor Dennis Terry received a modicum of fame for his introduction of Rick Santorum: in it he vehemently bloviated that American was "Christian Nation" and not beholding to any other religion whereupon he told the "naysayers and liberals" to "Get Out!" His later non-apology and insistence that as a Christian he really loved everyone was criticized as disingenuous... at best.

The Bully Pulpit

Yes, it's ironic that the very people who focus on freedom of religion do not believe in freedom for religion. It's ironic that a religion based on love and tolerance has sects and denominations that are not tolerant in the least, whether to other religions or other facets of Christianity. Far more Christians have persecuted other Christians than Christianity as a whole has been persecuted. The dizzying array of "sects" "cults" and "heretics" ostracized by organized segments of Christianity magnifies the fact that certain Christians are incapable of freedom of religion with their own let alone other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or Islam. 

One wonders that if certain evangelicals (read: Dominionists) get their way, just how many Mormons and Catholics will be persecuted, let alone Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Scientologists, and Moonies.

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Belief vs Exercise

When the Founding Father drafted the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion was actually more like Freedom FROM Religion in that it was a distinct reaction to hold the Church of England (Anglican) held on the colonies: 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So the Christian Right hates the first part, but takes advantage of the second part: in it, "belief" is only assumed, while "exercise" is more explicit. Any "Belief" can be castigated, while the act of bludgeoning anyone over the head with a Bible cannot. Had the Amendment said that every man had the freedom to believe what he wanted, but not the freedom to proselytize to the the detriment of another's beliefs, then it might have served Americans much better throughout it's freedom-loving history.

For it is with the exercise of beliefs that the Christian Right has gained the upper hand politically and has gained power over all other sects, denominations and religions: its organizations (like the Family Research Council) and media (Christian Broadcasting Network and Glenn Beck) and promotions (OpEd letters and billboards) trumpet "values" that instill fear of any other belief or creed.

In other words, the second part of the Amendment has unleashed a monster against the first part and against religious tolerance. And only by strengthening the first part, can we ever hope to achieve true freedom of religion. 

The Monday Sermon: If You Twist Science In The Name Of Family And Morality, You're Still ... Lying.

Lying ... is lying ... is lying ... is lying. False research? Hell, it's only lying on a different level. And in a sense, it's worse, because it is much more premeditated: sometimes we lie on the spur of the moment to cover something up, but false research, twisted research, takes thought. Lots of it.

Many organizations in our country have become extensions of today's pulpit: The American Family Association, The Family Research Council, Focus on the Family spearhead a movement to legitimize hate and promote their form of "morality" through junk science and "research." The Barna Group, for example, touts itself as an unbiased pollster, but it's findings are anything but unbiased: George Barna's profile can be found on the website for Newt Gingrich's campaign, the section titled "Faith Coalition." 

He founded the Barna Research Group in 1984 (now The Barna Group) and helped it become a leading marketing research firm focused on the intersection of faith and culture.

The Family "Research" Council has done it time and time again: presented bad research as the truth. In fact, the use of discredited research such as Paul Cameron's studies about gays is what has prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to list the FRC as a hate group. Ditto the American Family Association (Bryan Fischer) Ditto Abiding Ministries (Scott Lively). Ditto AFTAH (Americans for Truth About Homosexuality). Ditto NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). Ditto the late Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship:

Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship faked the data to make it appear as though taking part in their Christian rehabilitation program had a much higher rate of success in avoiding recidivism than it actually did. 

To the average American, false research has occasionally been exposed when it deals with homosexuality*. The machinations of Tony Perkins (FRC) and Bryan Fischer (AFA) have been questioned for years. But the truth is that false research has been demoralizing other religions and social arenas like Islam, women issues, and global warming for a good time as well.

PFAW:

The prolific use of shoddy research was on display when Rep. King used the dubious contention that over eight out of ten mosques in the U.S. advocate radical Islam as a rationale for holding congressional hearings on the radicalization of Muslim-Americans.The thoroughly debunked claim that extremists dominate over 80% of American mosques was first made by a Muslim cleric who has never been able to document or verify his assertion, but that hasn’t stopped anti-Muslim activists from repeating it ad nauseam. Frank Gaffney, Jr., of the Center for Security Policy, one of the most vociferous anti-Muslim ideologues, cited the phony statistic to defend his campaign to prevent the construction of mosques in America, and Religious Right leader Gary Bauer cited unnamed “experts” to support his allegation that those who disseminate “radical Wahhabist ideology” fund 80% of American mosques.

One typical evangelical response to global warming is given by the website Got Questions.org (The Bible Has Answers!)

The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.

Ah, politics! It's the best defense against true research. Two weeks ago, when researcher Robert Spitzer recanted his findings about the possibility of homosexual "change", the AFA and the FRC cited "politics" and the ferocious machinations of the "homosexual lobby."

"Liar Lair" and Vetting The Research.

The aggressiveness with which today's socially conservative organizations tout these pieces of misinformation is always limited to the people who will never question them, so one solution may be meet aggression with aggression: screaming  "lair, liar pants on fire!" But what about the morality of such aggression? This is probably where morality must be weighed and hate-enabling becomes far too heavy in the balance: make no stake about it, knowingly manipulating numbers and outcomes is intentionally harmful.

In our last Monday Sermon, we wrote about vetting your belief, and just as much as you need to vet your belief, you need to vet the research spouted by organizations that would make you distrust or hate a group, a religion or a science. 

You might say that vetting isn't enough, shouting "liar liar!' isn't enough. On the other hand, letting the lies go unchallenged is...a sin.

*TWO:NEW YORK — In a letter made available to Truth Wins Out, the authors of a book on the health of gay men have accused Focus on the Family of distorting their research. The researchers publicly repudiatedan article written by “ex-gay” activist Jeff Johnston in Focus on the Family’ web magazine, Citizen Link, which falsely linked homosexuality to childhood sexual abuse. This letter marks the tenth researcher in two years who has claimed that Focus on the Family misrepresented their work.