The Great Myth: Religious Tolerance in America

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof…”  So say the first words of the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, those words, in their practical application, have been twisted into a false interpretation of their intent.first amendment

In the United States, these words are meant to prevent abridging the free exercise thereof if it is a Judeo-Christian flavor.

If Ford Motor Corporation refused to allow women employees to drive to work, or buy Ford cars, because of an interpretation of the Quran, what would the reaction be?

If Amazon needed a husband’s approval for any purchase by a woman, what would the reaction be?

If the State of Rhode Island accepted the decree of an Imam on the divorce of a couple and deprived the woman of any child custody or financial support, what would the reaction be?

In the 21st century, our President interjects himself into the personal lives of millions of American women out of concern for “risky sexual behavior” using the cover of supporting religious freedom.

All that one must do is look at the list of organizations that support these latest Dark Ages policy pronouncements to understand the real motivation. These groups miss the days of Biblical imposed male dominance over women. They yearn for a time when men clothed in the robes of priestly garb decided what is moral. They crave the past heyday of influence they once held over American society.

This incestuous intermixing of Christian religious philosophy with secular government is more dangerous to our freedoms than any ISIS terrorist because it comes from within.

No President, in particular, this President, has any place deciding what is moral. Humans have an innate sense of morality. Our problem is we often lose sight in our quest for bigger and better things. Where we’ve failed is in setting examples of responsible behavior for our children. Much of the failure of moral behavior takes place in the halls of Congress and the White House.

Religion does not hold an exclusive on morality. Turning back the clock based on the false memory of a more moral past is self-deception. The purpose of these acts is garnering political support under the false umbrella of religious freedom. Allowing any religious group to set standards is dangerous. How moral was the Catholic Church when faced with the altar boy crisis? And how complicit was our government in ignoring such “moral” behavior?

I don’t watch many TV shows, but I’ve been intrigued by the show The Handmaid’s Tale. It doesn’t take much of a leap of faith (pun intended) to envision an America where such a society could arise when backed by the power of government.

They would do it for our good because God told them so.

The history of moral standards by organizations, be it governmental or religious, is fraught with examples of disaster. Allowing companies to opt out of specific health care provisions under the guise of religious freedom is disingenuous. An ominous portent of sliding down a slippery slope to Theocracy.

What’s next? We can allow companies to end health care for people living with cancer. God gave them disease, who are we to cure it?

Father Bob’s Fatwah: Inteference in the Political Process

The Rev. Robert L. Marciano, from the pulpit of his church, has chosen to interject himself and the power of the church into the presidential campaign. Many of the Catholic faithful applaud this. His dire warning that one’s “immortal soul” is in peril if one chooses to vote for Hillary Clinton received resounding support among the parishioners.

Aside from the fact that the good father offers no proof of such claim other than his faith, he has put himself and his church at risk of breaking the law.

The Catholic Church, as with most recognized religious sects, is a tax-exempt organization. As such they are restricted from certain types of political lobbying or candidate support in which they may engage.

The law is clear.

To remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity

  • Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office
  • Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office
  • Cannot make expenditures on behalf of a candidate for public office or allow any of their resources to be used indirectly for political purposes (e.g., use their phones for a phone bank)
  • Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
  • Cannot distribute partisan campaign literature
  • Cannot display political campaign signs on church property

The test for such compliance is clear as well

  • “Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;

I would say the good father may have violated several, if not all, of these parameters. The church, like other groups, has engaged in behind the scenes manipulation of elections for years. It was one of the reasons for including the separation clause. To mitigate the power of religion over the faithful and its effect on secular matters.

Now, the good father may answer that he follows the teachings of a man who also broke the law. That is true. But, if one accepts the teachings of this man, he also accepted the consequences of his actions.

If you cannot the see the danger of such religious interference in the selection of political candidates you are blindly tossing yourself off a cliff.

I wonder how those who support these actions would react if an Imam issued a Fatwah against Mrs. Clinton? I bet the reaction of the Catholic faithful would be a bit different.