FREE ESSAY ON RELIGIOUS EQUALITY

RELIGIOUS EQUALITY

America has been named the melting pot of the world. It houses many different cultures,
nationalities, ideas and religions. There are Christians, Jews, Catholics, Buddhists,
Mormons, Hindus, Spiritualists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamics, plus many more. America is
unique in that all these religions are represented in a nation that is only 200 years
old. And America has upheld, throughout history, that the freedom and equality of
religion is extremely important in order for this nation to function as a free nation.
The foundations of America were set as a result of England's persecution; more
specifically, England's religious persecution. The colonists wanted to create a nation
that allowed people to be free. They desired to speak what they wanted to speak, do what
they wanted to do, and practice what they wanted to practice... without the government
watching their every move. Thus came religious freedom. The First Amendment to the
Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, meaning that an American citizen
would be able to practice his or her religion without any intervention or persecution
from the government, be it Islam, Judism, Mormonism or Catholicism. Yet, with religious
freedom, comes important questions concerning its existence.
Is religious equality just as important as all the other freedoms... such as the freedom
of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom to assemble, and others as well? The answer
here is yes. If this nation truly stands for freedom, the American government cannot say
that its citizens have the right to speak freely, write freely, or assemble freely, but
then maintain an established national religion. That would be contradictory, and would
not make America any better off than England, which it had separated from just years
beforehand. Certainly, all the freedoms are equal. 
On the other hand, unlike the other freedoms mentioned, religious freedom addresses a
different type of need. It addresses the concept of personal fulfillment, or perhaps,
self-realization. Religion attempts to give answers to basic questions: From where did
the world come? What is the meaning of human life? Why do people die and what happens
afterward? Why is there evil? How should people behave? As a word religion is difficult
to define, but as a human experience it seems to be universal. The 20th-century
German-born American theologian, Paul Tillich, gave a simple and basic definition of the
word: Religion is ultimate concern. This means that religion includes that to which
people are most devoted or that from which they expect to get the most satisfaction in
life. Consequently, religion provides adequate answers to the basic afore mentioned
questions. Religion is, undoubtedly, a very important part of life. 
The second question regarding freedom of religion discusses which aspect of religion
should be considered equal: the structure or substantive content of religion, or the
individual conscience of that religion. Because of the diversity and impact that religion
has in the lives of Americans, the individual conscience should be treated as equal, not
the structure or substantive content of the various religions. No two religions are
alike, just as no two people are alike. The government cannot make all religions equal in
regards to their individual structure and/or practices because the individual practices
are what make each religion unique; appealing to the individual conscience. If all
religions had to be equal in practice, we would have Buddhists saying Hail Mary's, or
Christians bowing to Allah. Perhaps Catholics would wear orange robes and have shaved
heads, and Hare Krishna's could sing music out of the Protestant Psalter Hymnal. This
would defeat the whole purpose of allowing freedom of religion in the first place.
Religion must be able to differ in structure and substantive content. People must be able
to practice their own religion in the way they want to... and this cannot happen if all
religions in America are made equal in structure and practice.
The individual conscience in a certain religion, however, must be treated the same as any
other religion. A Christian conscience must be treated the same as that of a Buddhist
conscience. A Catholic conscience must be treated the same as that of a Mormon
conscience, and so on. One cannot discriminate against a religion if all religions are
indeed seen as equal in regards to the individual conscience. It would be like
discriminating against someone because they do not like coffee with their breakfast. If
one decides that they would rather have orange juice with their bacon and eggs, that is
up to them. It is their choice. And just because someone else may happen to like coffee
with breakfast, doesn't mean that either person is any more or any less equal to the
other. They simply have different tastes. 
So if one person was Jewish and the other was a Hindu, neither of them could be regarded
as superior or inferior to the other. If their individual consciences were truly equal,
they would just accept one another for who they are, not what religion they choose to
practice. And other people in that particular environment would accept them as well.
Perhaps the Jewish person does not like some aspects of the Hindu religion, or
vice-versa, but that doesn't mean that they are not equal. They simply have different
tastes.
Another question arises: Should a religious conscience be equal to a secular one? The
answer to this is yes. If America is truly the land of the free, then all consciences and
individuals should be regarded as equal to one another, no matter if they are religious
or secular. Ideally, this is what America stands for: freedom. The freedom to be
religious -- and freedom to be secular -- are both included in that ideal. 
Finally, should the government give support and encouragement to religious activity, or
should it stay out completely? Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter said it nicely: If nowhere
else, in the relations between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors. (Pole
69) The American government should stay out of all religious affairs. One of the main
reasons America broke away from England was to gain religious freedom, and to not have to
be pressured by the government into following one specific religion. Therefore, the
Supreme Court agreed that in the relationship between man and religion, the State is
firmly committed to a position of neutrality. (Pole 122) The founders of this country
made an agreement that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The government, from then on, vowed not get
involved with any religious affairs or concerns. 
And that is the way things should be. If the government gets involved in religion, there
is a chance that America could revert back to the ways of England; where there existed an
established national religion, as well as grumblings among the British citizens about
that religion. It has been said that we must learn from our past, in order to live in the
present, in order to better our future. And in America's past looms the unfortunate
mistake of the British government's involvement in religion. History has proven that
church and state need not mix. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support
of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. (Pole 112)
This does not mean that individuals can take advantage of this freedom. Just because the
American government is not going to get involved in any type of religion or religious
activity, does not mean that they are going to blind themselves to the area completely.
The church and state still communicate, even though they do not often directly effect one
another. And there are still civil laws that one must abide by, regardless of what
religion he or she belongs to. Mr. Justice Samuel F. Miller stated, In this country the
full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious
principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of
morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights is conceded to all.
(Pole 112) 
A Satanist who is caught sacrificing domestic animals as part of a satanic ritual cannot
plead the First Amendment if they are brought to court. Just because that person has
freedom of religion does not give them the right to use a household pet as part of a
satanic worship ceremony. It violates the laws of morality and property. This person must
still abide by the laws of the state, which prohibit him or her from committing such
horrid acts, regardless of whether they are religious or not. Even though church and
state are separate, religion is not a valid excuse for disobeying state law.
In addition, religious freedom must also mean religious self-sufficiency, and state
intervention to assist a church in any way was a denial of the self-sufficiency of that
church. (Pole 96) If the government was going to give religion its privacy, religion must
not, in turn, depend on the government for support. This freedom works both ways: Not
only is the government kept out of religious matters, but religion is, likewise, kept out
of government matters. There would be a true separation of church and state. 
Religious freedom has always been an important part of American history. It is the
concept which originally divided us from England, and without it, this country might not
exist today. Religious freedom, along with several other freedoms -- which are just as
important -- make America unique. It allows citizens to believe what they want to
believe, and practice what they want to practice without any pressure from the
government. Yet, religious freedom does not constitute civil disobedience. The fact still
remains that Americans are privileged in that they have this opportunity called religious
freedom. It is an important part of what indeed makes this country the land of the free.