Enforcing Religious Pluralism

I’m all for Freedom Of Religion. Truly. It seems to me that if I want to be a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Scientologist, Atheist, or Christian, that I should be able to do so freely, and without restraint. I should not be punished for my beliefs, and I should not be forced to suffer discrimination by governmental agencies that prefer a particular belief structure over the one I hold.

This is pretty simple, I think. Freedom of religion is about honoring all beliefs that we variously call religion, spirituality, or lack thereof. It’s about respecting every individual’s means of explaining their existence in terms of that great Other and answering those questions about Why and How.

It baffles me that some people don’t understand this respect, and feel that their particular set of beliefs should be enshrined in law and displayed everywhere in public at the expense of others. This strikes me as being an example of lessons from childhood that were not well learned.

Sharing, see, is important. Not just in pre-school, and not just on the playground. We teach children how to share because sharing is vital to the operation and survival of communities. Without individuals who can share, communities become conflicted and fail.

Separations of church and state as well as freedom of religion are about equal access and freedom to practice our religion, even if that religion is complete rejection of everything outside of our corporeal existence. But the concept of separation of church and state enforces that freedom by acknowledging that there are many religions, and that they cannot all be reasonably represented everywhere. As a result, all religion is banned from promotion via public funds because to promote one religion would be unfair to those who practice any other. It’s a tactic that has angered a lot of Christians for decades.

It wouldn’t have to be that way, of course. But for it to work, individuals and communities would have to be willing to share their space, time, and resources with others who may not practice their particular canon. And that sharing works both ways, because in some places in this country, Christians are the minority, not the majority. Freedom of religion is a concept created to allow them to practice without discrimination or fear.

When the Alabama Supreme Court forced a judge to take down a tablet of the Ten Commandments from public property, there was an incredible uproar. During that time, I watched a video of a man completely overcome, yelling and screaming, “Put it back! Put it back” till he could hardly stand.

I remember watching the video, listening to him repeat himself over and over, and thinking to myself, “Poor guy.” The man was so overwrought that even his fellow protesters were asking him to calm down, but he was so aggrieved as to be inconsolable. He swayed on his feet like he was about to lose consciousness due to blood loss.

But I would not have put the tablets back. However, I would have offered to share. All I ask is for equal representation. Indeed, if the Ten Commandments belong on public property, so do the guiding principles of every single faith in the country. So had I been in a position to bargain with the man who was overcome by the loss of the Ten Commandments, I would have proposed the following rule:

When concepts of faith, religion, or spirituality of any sort are described, displayed, taught, or are otherwise made available using Federal, State, or other public funds, equal representation of all other faiths practiced within the community serviced by the entity must also be present, in an order determined by audited, witnessed lottery.

In addition, entities that engage in any faith-related activities using public funds must publicly designate and maintain personnel responsible for support of faith presentation, and these personnel must be readily available to accept public input. If any two individuals residing within the community (regardless of relation) request the addition of the guiding principles of their belief system, the entity must make all accommodations necessary to complete equal presentation of the requestors’ faith within one calendar year of the written request’s submission.

Entities must fund adjustments to faith presentations through their own budgets, and are authorized to request voter-approved taxation, including taxation of community churches, to support the maintenance of religious presentation.

For the purpose of ensuring fairness in faith representation, the Federal Government will establish the National Bureau Of Equitable Religion And Faith Presentation and will designate personnel in all postal offices who will accept public comment for oversight of local faith presentation. The Bureau will act in an administrative function to support the direction of community complaints to the National Faith Presentation Review Court, comprised of a single representative of each major religion and faith nationwide. Funding for this Bureau will be provided by a national sales tax on items of religious or spiritual nature. This tax will be implemented and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.

Complaints regarding unequal representation of community beliefs may be submitted jointly or separately by any two individuals within the community (regardless of relation). Entities that fail to provide equal representation of faith in placement, content, and accessibility in the judgment of the Court are required to remove all representation within three months of a guilty verdict. No exceptions are made for space, time, or funding constraints. All entities that fail to comply will be subject to withdrawal of federal funds during the following quarter, Bureau intervention and subsequent presentation removal, or both.

I doubt that the man screaming to Put It Back would have agreed to my compromise. But it would address many issues with the current situation. Yes, it would eliminate some of the aspects of the separation of church and state, but it would encourage the celebration of freedom of religion, rather than prohibiting religious expression altogether. In addition, it would clarify that Atheism, so derided as “freedom from religion” is also a fully valid religion, too. Whether they were the majority or minority, every religion with unique practices could be ensured equal time and validation in schools, parks, public buildings, and any public venue that used public resources to discuss faith. Furthermore, funding for all of this is borne by the religious community as a whole, sharing the burden of protecting freedom of religion equally.

If my proposal is adopted, Christian beliefs can be placed on display in courts, schools, and agencies of all types and Christians can know that their beliefs are protected and guaranteed fair representation, just like Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist, Rajneesh, and Satanic principles are. When this proposal is implemented, separation of church and state, while still important for legislative matters, will no longer impose limits upon the public display and practice of faith in America.