First Amendment at Independence Hall (WSJ photo) |
More than a simple affirmation of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") the charter tries to deal with questions such as government constraints on religion:
government must protect the peace and order of society. Freedom of religion does not give any faith community the right to hold a noisy revival meeting at 2 a.m. Nor does it give any community the right to engage in practices that violate core norms of any civilized society. Even if a faith group sincerely believes human sacrifice is essential for salvation, the state is obligated to forbid this practice and punish anyone who seeks to engage in it. Whenever government limits free exercise, it must be to protect a compelling public interest, and the means it employs must restrict free exercise as little as possible.While acknowledging that there must be some constraints in civil society, the document is clearly weighted toward limited government. It returns to the original worldview behind the founding: [bold added]
the right to freedom of religion and conscience, rooted in the inviolable dignity of every human person, is not the gift of any government. It exists prior to governments, whose duty is to guarantee and protect this right. Though this thesis might seem tendentious, it is a restatement of the argument of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that people create governments to “secure” rights that governments do not create.Too often contemporary issues are framed as whether government should "allow" a religion to do something, when it is really government that must show a compelling reason to forbid a practice. The American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience is a good first step in (re)stating a philosophical framework with which to defend all religions in the legal, political, and public square.
No comments:
Post a Comment