Religious Freedom

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.

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?