Religion Is A Basic Human Right
Posted on October 29, 2005
I would like to draw your attention to an article by Alicia Colon in The New York Sun.
The piece is entitled, “the Assault On Religion In America” and mentions The Becket Fund, which describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, interfaith, legal and educational institute dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. We operate in three arenas: in the courts of law (litigation), in the court of public opinion (media), and in the academy (scholarship).
The Becket Fund is named after Thomas รก Becket (1118-70 AD), who stood resolutely at the intersection of Church and State. As a friend of King Henry II, Becket served as Chancellor of England and oversaw the laws of the kingdom. But as Archbishop of Canterbury, he steadfastly refused to allow the King to interfere in the Church, and was martyred by the King’s knights for defending the principle of religious liberty.
Included in the mission statement of The Becket Fund is the following:
Freedom of religion is a basic human right that no government may lawfully deny; it is not a gift of the state, but instead is rooted in the inherent dignity of the human person. Religious expression (of all traditions) is a natural part of life in civilized society, and religious arguments (on all sides of a question) are a normal and healthy element of public debate. Religious people and institutions are entitled to participate in government affairs on an equal basis with everyone else, and should not be excluded for professing their faith.
I think this is closer to the reality of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they laid the foundation of this great nation. The termites of the ACLU have been working feverishly to destroy that framework. It is time to call the exterminators and proceed with pest control.
Crossposted from Sweet Spirits of Ammonia.
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “Religion Is A Basic Human Right”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Religious arguments (on all sides of a question) are a normal and healthy element of public debate.”
They are? You’re joking, right? Religious arguments throughout history have managed to be both silly and deadly.
Here’s an example of a religious argument:
Palestinian: “My god says that this is my holy land.”
Jew: “My god says it’s mine.”
Is that healthy? Obviously not. The problem is that one group is pretending that god takes one stance and the other group pretends god takes another, mutually exclusive stance. It’s not an argument that has been settled healthily.
We’re talking about debate not gainsaying. There is a difference.
I don’t want to start up a Monty Python skit, but it’s the same logic.
“I pretend that god thinks X, therefore we should do Y”. I’m arguing my point based on what I like to pretend god thinks. That’s a religious argument. And it’s perfectly ok. And it’s legal in most countries. And the ACLU has long defended people’s rights to pretend stuff.
But there are other people who pretend that god thinks Z, and therefore they should do Q. That’s cool too. After all it’s just pretend.
But when they debate (or gainsay) this, there is nothing healthy about it. They’re debating what’s better to pretend. It’s absolutely silly, and people end up getting killed.
Your choice of words already gives away what you are. People who are truly religiously convicted do not “pretend”. Your premise is untenable, rendering your “argument” silly.
“People who are truly religiously convicted do not ‘pretend’”?
They don’t huh. OK. So what they’re doing is stating facts? So Allah does want them to be suicide bombers. And that’s not made up by people. And god does think that Israel is the holy land for Jews. I’m starting to get it. And god really does hate gay people, except when he doesn’t.
Yes, that’s very healthy.
I think you need to pray about this and switch to decaf.
I probably should switch to decaf, but I probably won’t.
And I defintely will think about this a lot. It’s an interesting debate. But rather than rely on centuries-old dogma, I will use my own brain along with the best information available to me today to help me arrive at my own conclusions. And I hope you’ll do the same.