A Threat to Religious Freedom

(See update at the end of this post. - JML)

While attention is focused on the Senate healthcare debate and Don Jr.’s e-mails with Russians, a largely unnoticed bill is wending its way through the legislative process that needs some serious public vetting. It is scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives next Friday. Authored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, it authorizes the federal government to identify “Islamic concepts, doctrines, or schools of thought” that might lead to terrorist activity. It also tasks the Pentagon with determining which Islamic clerics preach peaceful beliefs and which ones espouse extremist views.

The unconstitutionality of such a proposal ought to be obvious, first because it targets only one religion for government scrutiny, and second because it subjects religion of any kind to a government test. But it is also based on a faulty (and dangerous) assumption expressed by Congressman Franks: “There is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism” (emphasis mine). He is expressing the completely uninformed but widely held belief that terrorism is somehow intrinsically linked to Islam.

How, then, do we explain terrorist elements in other religious traditions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity? Supporters of the bill might protest that none of these other extreme elements have reeked near the havoc as terrorists who claim to represent pure Islam. But I don’t know how that could even be determined. How many hundreds of thousands have been killed by Christians committing violence in the name of their religion? You’d have to account for all of it over the last 2,000 years of Christian history to make a fair comparison. And had the Internet and today’s weapons technology been available to, say, factions fighting the Wars of Religion in Europe, the Irish Republican Army, or Timothy McVeigh’s right-wing militia, how much more destruction would they have achieved than they did? Franks’ assumption also ignores the fact that most of the radicalized American Muslims who have sought to align themselves with terrorist groups have not been life-long practitioners of Islam, but secular Muslims or nominal Protestant Christians who converted to religious extremism. This suggests that non-religious factors such as cultural isolation, economic despair, and even mental illness lie at the root of radicalization.

The point is, mass violence committed for the sake of terrorizing other people is often committed in the name of religion, but it is far from certain that any religious impulse is at the root of the violence. And you have to be very selective in your collection of data to link a terrorist impulse to one specific religious tradition.

But it gets worse. Do we really want to authorize the government to determine which expressions of religion are acceptable, and which ones might pose a threat to national security? Isn’t that precisely what the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom is designed to prevent? And why would we consider the government competent to make such theological judgments? If we allow freedom of religion to be abridged in the case of Islam, the precedent opens the door for abridging the free exercise of Christianity and Judaism as well. Right now, any bill authorizing government oversight of Christian denominations would spark immediate and widespread outrage. But if the majority accepts government supervision of a minority religion, it will only be a matter of time before the same oversight of other religions becomes normalized. It isn’t all that far-fetched to imagine the Pentagon targeting United Church of Christ pastors who participate in protests against anti-immigration orders or whose churches provide sanctuary to undocumented workers. How far away are we from raising suspicions about any religious protest against the government as “inciting ill-will against the United States and therefore posing a threat to national security”? If the Franks bill manages to become law, we will have moved a lot closer.

Even though this bill has escaped media scrutiny, American Muslims are watching closely to see how far it proceeds. They fear the day when attending a particular mosque will make them “persons of interest” with the FBI, CIA, or Homeland Security. They have heard careless proposals made on the campaign trail to create “registries” of Muslims, and wonder how committed their homeland is to its founding principals. But why aren’t all people of faith watching with them and sharing their concern?

The democracy that was carved out in Philadelphia in 1787 was not simply “majority rule.” The founders were well aware of the dangers of a “tyranny of the majority” that would result in times of panic when scapegoating would become a powerful temptation. That is why they sought to ensure the “inalienable rights” they believed were granted to all people by our Creator, and not subject to the will of the majority. They had in mind a time such as we are enduring today – when the lingering aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks continues to test the strength of our democracy. It isn’t enough to be resolved to protect our national security. In times like these, we must also maintain the resolve to protect ourselves from our own worst fears. Otherwise, ours is not a republic worth saving.

Update 7/16: Franks' legislation was attached as an amendment to a Defense Appropriations bill. It was defeated by a narrow vote of 217-208. Twenty-seven Republicans joined all the Democrats in opposition. That's still too close for comfort, but I'm glad to see there still remains a firewall of sanity - at least in regards to religious freedom - in Congress.

©2017 by J. Mark Lawson

Comments

[Dave Rosenfeld]

Whatever happened to "separation of church and state"? We may need to change our pledge of allegiance pretty soon as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty justice for all does not seem to hold anymore. More and more our freedoms are being taken away. Democracy and freedom does not shine as it once did.

[Becky leblanc]

Thank you for the response. It wasn't too much and it makes sense.

[Mark Lawson]

Hi Becky.

Great question. I personally believe Scientology is a dangerous cult that exploits the wealth of highly affluent people. I agree with you that, like other cultish religious groups, it is abusing its members. But, then, there are plenty of local Christian churches that are also abusive because they impose narrow, patriarchal rules on their members.

This, unfortunately, is a price of religious freedom. I don't believe the government has any business making judgments about the belief systems or doctrines of any faith community.

Having said that, religious groups are not free to break the law. So, for instance, when the Word of Life church in New Hartford subjected two of its members to a "disciplinary beating" that resulted in death, they were guilty of murder and subject to the secular judicial system. They had the right to impose a strict discipline, but not the right to kill in order to enforce their beliefs. Cult leaders often wind up on the wrong side of the law because they believe they are above it.

So freedom of religion is sacrosanct in our country, but not freedom to commit a crime in the name of a religion. If any religious community is building bombs or stockpiling weapons or leading their members to mass suicide, they need to be stopped. Even when a religious community engages in civil disobedience against an unjust law, it must willingly submit to the consequences in the hopes of changing the law. It is not free to break the law without consequences simply by pleading religious freedom.

The bill under question, however, isn't about uncovering unlawful activity. It is designed to allow the government to make judgments about the belief system of one religion, thus submitting that religion to an unconstitutional test.

I hope I haven't given you too much more of an answer than you wanted!

Mark

[Becky leblanc]

Mark,

I agree that the spirit behind this bill is of major concern and I did not know about it, so thank you.

I am wondering though, what are your thoughts about Scientology, which proclaims itself a religion but actually is exploiting and abusing its members??

Becky