An essay I wrote for a class debate. I couldn't pick a side, but the research I did for this essay gave me a better understanding.
The term ‘Freedom of Religion’
is a principle which allows the freedom of an individual or community, in
public or private, to practice, manifest, change, or not follow any religion of
their choosing. The principle is practiced by most democratic and tolerant
countries, the issue of which is up for argument on whether a state should have
the right to limit religious practices to conform to their form of government
or to allow the practice of religion freely. Religious freedom for all is a
methodology that is inconsistent with itself, imaginary, impractical, and in
some forms oppression against religion as a whole.
.png)
The inconsistency of this
principle comes from the fact that some religions do not allow the changing,
manifesting, or renouncing of a religion. Abrahamic religions do not allow the
renouncing of one’s religion for another and they do not allow atheistic
beliefs. In Islam, one who renounces his belief after accepting Islam is to be
sanctioned the death penalty. The Catholic Church considers ideologies which
are inconsistent with its own, such as Calvinism or Protestantism, as heresy.
To follow your rulings is to practice your religion and if changing and
manifesting is to be supported by the principle of Religious Freedom then it
works against these religions. Also, for such faiths which have practices which
are clearly unacceptable to societies other than its own, such as Hindu
breeding and worship of rats in public, as well as the Mourning rituals by
Shiite Muslims, it is difficult to find societies other than those faiths and
denominations that will allow such public practice. Hence, it is not only inconsistent but
impractical. Atheism, as well, is
considered a belief in its own accord and in essence any detriment to beliefs
in God or Deities is beneficial to such a belief as Atheism. In such a case
where in order to comply with the ‘Freedom Of Religion’ principle, all
religions must make a compromise with their own beliefs, which is forced by the
state, then it can be viewed as a denunciation of religion as a whole and a
support of Atheism, such a case is contradictory to the principle where the
state should not interfere with religious matters and should not be biased in
its decision making.
If a state is not allowed
to limit the practice of religions in accordance with its own form of governance,
then it creates tension between parties of different faiths or denominations. Even
democratic countries today are realizing that they want to enforce their own
form of government and that Freedom of Religion is not something they want for
a certain number of faiths. We can see this trend in France with the banning of
the ‘Hijab’ and other head-wear, such as Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulke
(skull cap), in schools, and the banning of Minarets in Switzerland. This is
contradictory to the Religious Freedom principle as wearing such apparel is
part of practicing religion and not simply a form of worship. In such a case,
there needs to be a clear definition for “Freedom of Religion”, is it Freedom
to practice or freedom to worship? The United States itself does not fully
practice this principle when it follows the motto ‘In God We Trust’ as a state
motto. It is a form of ‘double-standards’ for a state to follow a motto of
Monotheistic belief while trying to preserve the Freedom of Religion; towards
people of polytheistic beliefs and atheists especially. We can see that the United States is moving
towards the same measures as France, Belgium, and Switzerland with President
Obama clearly avoiding the term “Freedom of Religion” and using “Freedom of
Worship” in his speeches. The United States has also, until recently, regulated
and limited the door-to-door proselytizing of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which their faith requires them
to do so, by forcing them to gain permits from the government; which they didn’t
always get. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been in and out of The Supreme Court
with similar cases. This shows that the principal of limiting practices is
present even in the secular government of the United States. Iraq, now a democratic
country, still does not allow laws to be passed which are against basic Islamic
laws. They allow the full practice of the religious denominations and this has
caused sectarian violence.
No state can satisfy all
faiths without enacting a compromise on them; this in turn defeats the purpose
of ‘Freedom of Religion’ therefore making it impractical.
Your thoughts?
