- Local every day in
Since you can’t swing a dead Randall Road cat without hittin’ one of ‘em, despite 1st Ward aldermanic candidate and occasional Patch contributor Mike Bruno’s previous blogs, it’s time for me to wade in, too.
Of course, we’re talking about those suddenly ubiquitous “Religious Liberty — Live it! Protect it!” bumper stickers depicting a solemn Statue of Liberty ironically hoisting a cross in place of her iconic torch.
And I say “ironic” because that torch is supposed to symbolize enlightenment. As Mike so accurately pointed out, given its meaning and the basis upon which this country was founded, no self-respecting national symbol would ever want to be seen endorsing one religion over another.
It’s unseemly — not to mention unconstitutional.
But while my esteemed blogging colleague tackled this touchy topic from the eminently logical First Amendment freedom of religion perspective, I’m going to take a somewhat more subtle approach. (Don’t laugh!)
Because despite what your history books tell you, the Puritans didn’t come here for freedom of religion, they came here for freedom FROM religion. Of course, as is par for the course, they proceeded to become as bad as their persecutors.
Some 225 odd years later, we seem to have forgotten that our Constitution utterly reeks of surefire means of foiling the tyranny of the majority. In fact, the founders were quite emphatic when they banned any state-sponsored religion. And the fact that most of us don’t get it doesn’t make that stipulation any less self-evident.
There’s a good reason that one tops the list!
Though I will defend St. Peter Church’s right to display those 3,500 annual anti-abortion crosses to my own death, the second the Catholic clergy calls for legislation overturning Roe v. Wade, we have a serious problem.
If they, or any other church, even consider an attempt to statutorily foist their beliefs upon me, not only should the IRS immediately reconsider their 501C3 status, but it completely flies in the face of the First Amendment.
Following that impeccable logic, if you choose to you work for a religious institution, that doesn’t mean you’re forced to follow their rules. And if a religious institution chooses to run a business — for profit or not — it means they must abide by the rules that govern every other business.
If the law of the land states that employee health insurance must cover contraceptives, then that’s exactly what you have to do! You don’t have to like it, but the fact that laws exist which violate my personal principles doesn’t make me an exception nor does it render them any less valid.
What if my religion demands the dismissal of red, eight-sided signs? It doesn’t matter that your staff can work elsewhere — our Constitution isn’t optional.
Now, before you accuse me of heresy (I was raised Catholic), please consider the big picture first, because that portrait contains a subtle irony that most folks choose to ignore.
What if, because they condemn alcohol consumption, a Muslim-owned business insisted on insurance riders that cut out any alcohol-related illnesses? The ensuing uproar would be so intense we’d probably forget about our current lack of Twinkies.
Or what if I came up with a wacky religion (the Scientologists did it!) that declares that blond women are the demon’s spawn and, thus, my business will pay them half of what every other employee makes.
After the EEOC and NOW were finished with me, there’d be nothing left. And don’t laugh, that’s exactly what Mormons said about African-Americans until they got religion!
But here’s the most massive irony (there’s that word again!) of ‘em all. While their legislature relentlessly tries to turn high school science class into a Bible study, in May, the state of Kansas passed a law forbidding any judge from considering Sharia law in their rulings!
Not only does that abject absurdity expose those legislators for the hypocrites they really are, but the First Amendment already covers it. Though religious canon and secular law often intersect, it’s merely coincidental.
I don’t need the Catholic Church to tell me murder ain’t a good thing.
By the very bedrock this country was founded upon, and within the bounds of non-persecution reason, the state will always trumps religion because that’s exactly the way it’s supposed to be. If you choose to run a businesses — and a church is a business — then you have to abide by the Affordable Care Act and cover contraceptives.
End of story.
Because if you don’t, then I wouldn’t be crossing Third Street anytime I’m driving down it, because Wardism clearly maintains that traffic laws are the work of devil.
So when I see your Randall Road bumper sticker calling for the protection of religious liberty, not only will I proclaim your right to display it, but I will be more than happy to give you a hearty thumbs up. That self-evident truth means that, like those Puritans before me, I have been liberated from your religious beliefs without exception.
Hallelujah!
Don't get enough Jeff Ward? (And who does?) Tune in to WRMN AM 1410 every Tuesday afternoon from 3 to 4 for Left, Right and You with Allen Skillicorn.
Tell us in the comments.
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
In This article
-
St. Peter Catholic Church
1891 Kaneville Rd, Geneva, IL (The main parking lot and church entrance is on the east side, the parish center entrance is on the west side.) -
-
Gabrielle McLeod
10:10 am on Monday, December 3, 2012
The Puritans came here for freedom from religion, true-- they came here for freedom from a religion that was hindering them from practising their own, namely, Christianity.
I would also like to mention that it was that religion that 95% of the signers of the Constitution followed.
Mike Bruno
11:37 am on Monday, December 3, 2012
It is interesting to hear the different spins re: the motivations of the Puritans. I had heard it described that the the European church of the day was *not hard-lined enough" hence their fleeing to the new world. (I think it was in the excellent book "Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty" by Steven Waldman. If the topic interests you, it should be required reading)
As far as "95% of the signers of the Constitution" being Christian, that can be challenged. Moreover, it is a red herring. In the day, there were really few options other than god-belief. The enlightenment was young and we couldn't explain many things without the invocation of a god. Hurricanes, droughts, locusts, plagues and more were thought to be retribution from on high...or low. We now know that those are random acts of nature. Back in the founding days, you really had to be out there to not attribute much of the world to some deity...but they were there and some signed the Constitution.
Even those that self-described as Christian, we would hardly consider as such by today's standards. The likes of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Payne had much disdain for formalized Christianity. While there were some that fit today's Christian mold, a good many we would, today, recognize as deists and, yes, atheists.
The founders recognized the bad brew of religion and governance and gave us a secular nation. Original, Puritanical motives mean nothing.
Colin C.
12:22 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Thanks Jeff and Mike, What a great revelation of this somewhat controversial topic.
I know of no other that engenders so much animosity based of misinformation.
Jeff, you and Mike are right, as usual. The Founders were, as a group, very mistrustful of the power of the "Church". They knew what had happened in Europe from 400 AD up to the drafting of the US Constitution and wanted no part of it. Their letters and commentaries leave no doubt just why the separation clause is in the very first of the ten amendments that make up our Bill of Rights. I get a kick out of those who claim the nonsense that our Founders were "true, Christian, God fearing men..." or some such. Many of tour Founders feared organized religion far more than they feared God, rightfully so, I believe.
Sorry for the repetition but yes, a business is a business, no matter who runs it or what they believe. It must be run according to the secular law of the US. It does not matter if it's NFP, does charitable work, saves lives, or whatever. The business itself is, and must always remain secular.
Anyone has the right to proselytize their belief all they want. They do not have the right to enact their particular religious beliefs into law and force them down our throats. That is unAmericam and we must never give into that kind of minority takeover of our Country and our true freedoms.
We live in a Democracy. It must not be allowed to become a theocracy.
Jeff Ward
12:50 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Colin and Mike,
Hear Hear!
Jeff
Jack
1:35 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
All well and good until you go up against a religion that would put the historic depredations of old-time Christianity to shame. I think we all know which one that is.
Sharia will make the Inquisition look like comedy relief. And it's already taking hold in other 1st-World nations. There is much more to the story of religious liberty than is being considered in your piece, Jeff--or in your comments, Mike--though there are important truths in both, of course.
Colin C.
7:45 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Actually Jack, if you take a close and honest look at the Christian Church, say between 500 and 1700 AD you will find many instances of the creation and enforcement of laws every bit as violent and brutal as anything that Sharia law has to offer. Fortunately the Christian religion has grown past burning at the stake, organized and incredibly brutal torture, holy wars, and the like but they were once commonplace and directed by the Church.
Interestingly, Islam is some 1300 years old. When Christianity was 1300 years old it was the height of the Middle Ages, when our most brutal history took place. Could it possibly be that Islam might "mature" away from some of its practices, as Christianity has?
That is not meant as a criticism of Islam, just a question about the possible evolution of religions in the Judeo,Christian, Muslim tradition.
Jack
12:16 am on Saturday, February 9, 2013
I don't think we need to worry quite so much about mistakes of the distant past, by any religion. The problems of today and tomorrow are enough.
Waiting a few hundred more years to see if perchance Islam might eventually become more permissive, less horribly brutal to women and encouraging of democracy is not a rational answer.
Martha Hanna
8:44 am on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
That bump sticker always bothers me. I don't understand it. I am always hoping I can speak to the driver of the car so they can explain to me what it means. Religious freedom with crosses, I don't get it. I was at the Adler Planetarium yesterday and was suprised at the amount of information the Vatican has about our universe. I don't understand what the catholic religion is all about. I recently read the book "Life of Pi" the main character has trouble embracing a specific religion because he finds them all so beautiful, they center on one meaninful expression and that is LOVE.
Jeff, I am glad you brought this bumper sticker into a discussion as it totally confuses me at all times.
Colin C.
8:04 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Mike Bruno's comment about free will, which itself is a "human" concept, has far more than one scientific study going for it. There are a great many studies (just read the online Scientific American-Brain/Mind for a year or two) that indicate that humans are not born with a brain that is an "empty slate" but with one that is "pre-wired and pre-programed" in such a way that each individual will possess certain characteristics and tendencies that they will have for life. We might term this "personality traits" but what ever you call it anyone who has raised more than one child might have noticed that children are different from the very beginning and that initial personality, while shaped by environment, remains basically the same.
This "personality" seems to influence or even determine the choices that we make. For example, several studies that i have read about seemed to indicate that people who were more disturbed or frightened by disturbing images ( big, hairy spiders, mangled human bodies, etc) self identified as more politically and/or religiously conservative than people who were less disturbed by the same images. So, does our "inborn" reaction to external stimuli determine our political or religious philosophy?
We simply don't know enough about the brain yet but what we have learned in the last 25 years or so seem to point that way.
Science is not static. We keep learning more.
Marguerita Johnston
8:17 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
I was appalled by the eyesore/white cross displays in area catholic churches. I wondered how to explain it to my young grandchildren. As a former catholic, I am not shocked by the church's use of histrionics and gore to make a point, but could not come up with a cogent explanation. While they're at it, how about a matching graveyard of crosses for the victims of clergy pedophilia?
Colin C.
9:53 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wow! Marguerita, What a powerful statement. What an appropriate question, that most people seem terrified to ask.
I hope that you don't mind but I would like to that that question a bit further, if I may.
Jeff started this thread by questioning the "right" of the "church" to claim it an infringement of their "freedom of religion" to require their businesses to follow federal law.
To be clear, a "church" is an institution created and operated by people. In most cases a church promotes a philosophical doctrine that is based upon a belief in a deity; a supernatural being that creates and manages existence is one form or another.
For example, the Christian Religion was founded by Jesus Christ, who promulgated a philosophy about life and how the God who created us wishes us to live it. The Christian Church was founded by Peter, Paul, and other early followers of Christ's philosophy. It was established as a mainstream organization by the Roman Emperor Constantine some 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ. The Churches (there are hundreds of them now) are human institutions.
A dear friend, mentor, and Benedictine Priest once told me that "We just in sales, we
have nothing to do with management".
That said, The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has found itself in serious conflict with governments of all sorts over the centuries. Today, among other things, we are all trying to find a way to cope with the pedophilia scandal.
(continued next post)
Colin C.
10:14 am on Thursday, December 6, 2012
(Sorry to go on so)
As I understand the situation from reports, RC priests in many countries have been accused of pedophilia and in many cases their crimes have been willfully covered up by their superiors in the Church. There seems to be substantial evidence that some Priests, Monsignors, Bishops, and even Cardinals may have worked together to hide these crimes. It has even been alleged that several Popes have had knowledge of these activities. I do not know the truth of the matter but have this question.
In the United States pedophilia is a felony in every state. It is also a crime to have knowledge of a felony and not report it to the proper authorities. It is a crime for two or more people to conspire to cover up a felony. An organization that has a pattern of committing crimes such as these can be prosecuted under the Federal RICO Statutes as an organized criminal institution.
To the best of my knowledge a handful of Priests, one Monsignor, and one or two Bishops have been charged and tried for their actions.
Why has there been no national, comprehensive, and aggressive investigation of this entire organization?
How can this organization have the gall to hold itself up as the arbiter of morality, given its own history?
In case you are wondering, I believe in and try my best to follow Jesus. I belong to and participate in a mainstream Christian Church but have limited respect for these organizations themselves.
Mike Bruno
3:44 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
@Colin: Some huge and disturbing cases have been well documented. Two that come to mind are years sexual abuse of deaf children in Wisconsin. Mr. Ratzinger's signature is even on at least one document that protected the offender at the expense of the children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?pagewanted=all
Then there is the unspeakable horrific institutional abuse of children in Ireland. The scale and depravity of which I hate to even think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_report
Who do I trust the least? Those that claim moral authority.
The response to child abuse is not secret meetings. The response is 9-1-1 and the courts.
Colin C.
4:00 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
4:00 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Mike, Then why isn't the Roman Catholic Church investigated and if found guilty of repeated conspiracys to conceal repeated felonies, labeled a criminal organization?
Mike Bruno
7:56 am on Friday, December 7, 2012
@Colin: I have my theories...
I need to preface my comments with recognition that the "Roman Catholic Church" is very different than "Catholics". If anything I have (or will) say seems offensive, I speak only of the institution and power structure of the RCC. Catholics (a tradition in which I was raised) are as disgusted by the abuse and primitive doctrines as anyone. Unfortunately, it seems that most lay-Catholics are unaware of the scope and collusion within the church power structure.
Anyway...
My theory is that religion, in general, still benefits greatly from the ancient assumption that the church...any church...is beyond criticism. If the Attorney General (at the state or national level) were to press charges there would be a massive popular outcry from the religious majority. I sense that we are on the cusp of a change with that though. A recent Pew survey showed that fully 20% of the population has no affiliation with organized religion...and that segment is growing far faster than any other religious segment. Within a generation, we may see that a majority can dispassionately turn a critical eye toward a church's role in society.
Some would argue that that change would mean the collapse of society, but studies don't back that up...not even remotely. http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
Ted Toburen
6:37 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Sorry Jeff...it's freedom of religion...not freedom from religion.
Jack
12:58 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Jeff,
The 501C3 category, and other IRS flags under which non-profit exemptions sail, ought to be done away with.
Policing non-profits, including churches, to insure they stay out of the political arena is a waste of resources. Let them participate fully and openly in the process. But also stop what is in essence making a gift to their supporters of a portion of our taxes. Those who wish to advance the Faith of their Fathers may support that cause with their whole being, but not with my tax money. Tax money should support those activities which are normally the government's alone -- like roads, sewers and murdering American citizens abroad without due process.
We also evidence some confusion about the idea of Equality Before the Law when we tax differently two people who have received a government license for unification than we tax any two individuals without that license. Why should anyone need government approval for, or even government recognition of, a loving relationship -- let alone a financial boost supplied from the labor of the rest of us? This then tends in short order to lead down a very icy slope toward (unlimited) tax exemptions for procreation, a further drain on the resources of all other tax-payers. Struggling to do the clearly impossible task of paying for everything our "Progressive" legislatures want to buy is daunting enough.
Mike Bruno
2:35 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
@Jack in Geneva. There are social safety nets that are the responsibility of the government too. I imagine it is far cheaper to pay a volunteer organization to provide soup that a government run organization. I fully support subsidizing organizations that provide that social service. It breaks down because Lyndon Johnson gave them *blanket* exemptions on the promise they stay out of politics. That promise is broken and we now subsidize prosthelytizing with our tax dollars. I outlined some options here: http://geneva.patch.com/blog_posts/lets-end-the-religious-tax-exemption-as-we-know-it . There are HUGE dollars in play.