FD Article #11
by Brian K Shoemake
Freedom of Religion has historically referred to the tolerance of diverse theological beliefs.
Freedom of worship has been defined as freedom to follow one's own conscience and an individual action based on a personal religious belief system. Freedom to pray, freedom of conscience, and freedom to worship as one desires or the freedom from religion and freedom not to worship are all encompassed in one's own right to a personal religious belief system. The right to worship without regard to government, law, restriction, harassment, taxation, or persecution for exercising these basic inalienable rights is fundamental to liberty and freedom.
by Brian K Shoemake
Freedom of Religion has historically referred to the tolerance of diverse theological beliefs.
Freedom of worship has been defined as freedom to follow one's own conscience and an individual action based on a personal religious belief system. Freedom to pray, freedom of conscience, and freedom to worship as one desires or the freedom from religion and freedom not to worship are all encompassed in one's own right to a personal religious belief system. The right to worship without regard to government, law, restriction, harassment, taxation, or persecution for exercising these basic inalienable rights is fundamental to liberty and freedom.
Throughout history tyrants and despots have attempted to regulate or interfere with religious freedom for political gain and control. This has often resulted in punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, political disenfranchisement, or worse.
Religious freedom as envisioned by the founders and acknowledged in the First Amendment, can flourish only through strict prohibition of state or political intervention.
Consequently, there has always existed an inseparable link between religion and liberty, neither can exist unilaterally. The founders recognized that the unabridged right of religious freedom through the resolve of one's own conscience, was preeminent to the liberty of all mankind, so much so that they coined a term for this covenant between man and his creator; they called it our "First Liberty."
They also understood the importance of one's right to reject religion outright without legal or social repudiation or consequence. The concept of protecting religion from the influence of the state through the free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights was in recognition of this concept:
Religious freedom as envisioned by the founders and acknowledged in the First Amendment, can flourish only through strict prohibition of state or political intervention.
Consequently, there has always existed an inseparable link between religion and liberty, neither can exist unilaterally. The founders recognized that the unabridged right of religious freedom through the resolve of one's own conscience, was preeminent to the liberty of all mankind, so much so that they coined a term for this covenant between man and his creator; they called it our "First Liberty."
They also understood the importance of one's right to reject religion outright without legal or social repudiation or consequence. The concept of protecting religion from the influence of the state through the free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights was in recognition of this concept:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...”
- Amendment 1 - Bill of Rights
“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required states to meet the "strict scrutiny" standard when refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. This meant that a government needed to have a "compelling interest" regarding such a refusal. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by the state of South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith.
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled:
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled:
“Any law that unduly burdens the practice of religion without a compelling interest, even though it might be neutral on its face, would be unconstitutional...”
Therefore, under the Free Exercise Clause as ratified in the Bill of Rights, and upheld by the Supreme Court, a government cannot in any way interfere with, impede, or otherwise obstruct the free exercise of religion as dictated by one’s own conscience and religious conviction as long as the practice of that religion does not break the law or directly violate the rights of another individual.
Any law compelling a person to disaffirm his or her own conscience by violating their religious freedom through a mandate of the state should and would be struck down by a constitutional challenge.
Any law compelling a person to disaffirm his or her own conscience by violating their religious freedom through a mandate of the state should and would be struck down by a constitutional challenge.
"There is not a shadow of right on the general government to intermeddle [sic] with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject that I have warmly supported religious freedom..."
- James Madison - father of the Constitution
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines or exercises..."
- Thomas Jefferson's Letter to Rev. Mr. Millar, Jan. 23,1808
(Words of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 5, pg 236.)
The words of the founders make it clear that there is a covenant between man and his creator that no government has the right or authority to supersede that sacred pact. The wall of separation was meant to keep government out of religion.*
That no government may impose itself on a religious organization or faith under the guise of the public good, or for the sake of political expediency, financial gain, penalty, or otherwise.
By surrendering the right of free worship, the people succumb to the powers that would control them. Without freedom of religion, there can be no implied freedom. For that reason, the government has no place at the altar of religion.
The right to worship and the right to conscience are rights endowed by the creator; they are sacred rights, absolute rights, they are inalienable rights, they are rights that people have shed their blood for, they are rights worth protecting in this free Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.
* From Founding Defenders #5 “Wall of Separation – The Big Myth”
by Brian K. Shoemake
That no government may impose itself on a religious organization or faith under the guise of the public good, or for the sake of political expediency, financial gain, penalty, or otherwise.
By surrendering the right of free worship, the people succumb to the powers that would control them. Without freedom of religion, there can be no implied freedom. For that reason, the government has no place at the altar of religion.
The right to worship and the right to conscience are rights endowed by the creator; they are sacred rights, absolute rights, they are inalienable rights, they are rights that people have shed their blood for, they are rights worth protecting in this free Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.
* From Founding Defenders #5 “Wall of Separation – The Big Myth”
by Brian K. Shoemake