I think I remember some years back that a Republican politician argued that the First Amendment does not give citizens the right to not practice a theist religion, it only prohibits the government from telling them which religion to practice. Could have been 10 or even 20 years ago. I’ve hunted for the quote but can’t find it.
Yes, I know several court decisions have affirmed a right to not practice a theist religion, and that some courts have held that for the specific purpose of deciding religious liberty cases atheism is a religion. I’m really only looking factually for the politician and his quote.
Please help find that quote before we get ourselves moved into IMHO or Politics & Elections?
I can’t find the quote you can’t find, but in 2016 President Obama signed a bill protecting the 1st amendment rights of atheists per this short article.
“Atheists will now be protected under US law as part of new legislation promoting religious freedom signed in by US President Barack Obama. From now on the rights of “non theists” as well as religious minorities will be enshrined, following the HR15 amendment to the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act.”
It’s such a common sentiment among religious fanatics I would be surprised if you couldn’t find half a dozen Republican politicians saying words to that effect in any given year. Without more details I don’t know how to identify a specific quote.
Just a reminder that, as currently construed, this thread is suitable for FQ. I fear that it’s a futile quest, for the reason @Stranger_On_A_Train mentioned, but everyone please attempt to stay on the factual topic.
I’ll be surprised if you find any politician arguing that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment doesn’t apply to atheists. That would mean that we prosecute people for avowing atheism or failing to belong to a theistic church. If any politician has advocated that, it has not come to my attention.
The assertion is often made, however, that the establishment clause doesn’t apply to atheism. That is, the establishment clause requires that the government be neutral among religions, but not necessarily neutral as between religion and irreligion. The assertion is IMO legal and historical nonsense, but that doesn’t stop it from being made often enough that, as Stranger says, it would be difficult to pick out a quote without further guidance.
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise .
So I guess it depends what you think “law respecting an establishment of religion” actually means. Or more accurately, what the Supreme Court thinks.
IMHO - which counts for nothing, IANAAmerican - if a law discriminates between “religion” and “no religion” in any way, to the detriment of “no religion”, then it effectively does create/promote a state religion - i.e. “not atheist”. How would some eastern religions count, which if I understand correctly, do not involve a higher being? You can also argue atheism is a form of religion, since it is strictly personal belief - the existence or non-existence of god(s) cannot be proven.
Searching on the phrase “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion” turns up a lot of somewhat adjacent stuff, but “freedom from religion” in this phrase is generally taken to mean “freedom from being exposed to religion”, and not the more troubling “freedom from being forced to practice or claim adherence to a religion”.
It’s really this concept that we could all be forced to practice or claim adherence to some religion that I’m interested in. I think the quote I saw years ago maintained that the government would be within its rights to require all of us to do this, and that the religion could be of our choosing but atheism and agnosticism would not be options. The quote further considered that the government is not merely able to do this, but should. At least, as I vaguely remember it.
“Establishment” is a specialized word in this context. In England, at least during the 16th century, but doubtless for centuries before and after, there was an “established” church and every person was required to belong to it and attend its services. Before and after “Bloody” Mary it was the church of England, while during her reign, it was the Catholic church.
For a century or more, Massachusetts had an established church, the Puritans. That’s why Roger Williams went to RI. I think the first amendment has to be read in light of that history. So I think a state government could make religion compulsory; it just couldn’t single one out to make it compulsory. I cannot see it happening, but it would not obviously violate the first amendment. But I can believe that some politician might see it that way.
It especially counts for nothing in this forum. Again, this is FQ. The OP is asking about a specific quote from a specific politician. That’s factual. What the government ought to do is not a factual question.
Some specifics, “D. What Did the Founding Generation Mean by “Free Exercise”?
By the phrase “free exercise,” the founding generation appears to have meant
freedom of religion for all theists, not just Christians; but not the freedom from
religion sought by atheists and agnostics…” from page 27.
From Oliver Ellsworth, “The italicized language makes Ellsworth sounds like a strict separationist, although
that sits oddly (to modem minds) with the reference to God. Here is additional
context:
But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny
that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in
matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross
immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these
is of evil example and public detriment. For this reason, I
heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane
swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.137
Thus, in Ellsworth’s view, government should not meddle with religion, but should
not tolerate atheism.
Ellsworth’s outlook was entirely typical. In 1986, Professor Philip Kurland,
one of the nation’s most distinguished constitutional historians, sunmarized the
evidence as follows:
[C]ontemporary thinkers relied on God’s will to justify nondiscrimination among any who worshiped a single god. Deists,
Jews, and Mahometans came with the announced protection of
religious freedom, but I am hard put to find any evidence in the
development of legal protection for religious freedom that
indicates any intention to protect atheists. 1
38
More recently, Professor Noah Feldman elaborated: the contemporary justification of “free exercise” or “freedom of conscience” depended on religious belief.
Developed over the years by John Locke and many others, the justification was that
the conscience belonged to God, and that it was an act of impiety for civil government to impede upon the judgment of conscience as to how to worship God.”
[Moderating]
This is the last non-warning note I’m going to give on this. The Factual Question here is what Republican politician was the source of the quote the OP heard. Any further discussion that is not on this topic will be subject to a Warning.
And yes, I realize that this might mean that this thread dies because nobody can tell what the factual answer is. If it dies, it dies.
Following up on the Rick Perry idea, he said this in the context of signing a Texas law known as the “Merry Christmas Bill” which allowed religious holiday greetings to be used in schools, as well as multi-faith religious displays, as long as it doesn’t actively encourage adherence to a particular religious belief. His quote was, “Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion,” which has also been said countless times by other politicians. But this one got a lot of exposure and was in the time frame you’re looking for.
Czarcasm, you are correct, what I was seeking is a quote from a prominent politician about this subject.
smithsb provides an excellent cite that is absolutely on point. To quote their post, “Thus, in Ellsworth’s view, government should not meddle with religion, but should not tolerate atheism.” smithsb is quoting Oliver Ellsworth, who was a politician among other things. Ellsworth predated the Republican Party and may not be the quote I was looking for – however, I’m not so sure I remember right, either. I was asking a Factual Question but must admit I’m not certain there’s a factual answer that would fit.
I think the posts about Rick Perry could actually be getting at what I remembered, though that would mean I had conflated two ideas. One is “freedom from religion” as “freedom from exposure to other people’s religion”, which is how I take Perry’s meaning (and several others’ meanings, including Al Gore). The other idea is “freedom from religion” as “freedom from being forced to practice or profess belief in whatever religion as opposed to atheism (or agnosticism for that matter)”. I was thinking I heard this second idea espoused, but maybe I only heard the first in recent years and had also heard the second in a more historical context.
So, perhaps my question is answered, as far as is possible. I appreciate this being kept in Factual Questions so far, and personally think the excellent post by smithsb is a great example of a factual answer.
Thank you everybody!
If this thread takes on a less FQ nature and gets moved, I would no longer feel slighted, though I’m not asking for this to happen.
You might be thinking of Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech in 2007. He didn’t explicitly say there is no protection for atheists or discuss the 1st Amendment, but he hinted at it, and there was a lot of blowback from people who interpreted it as such. At the time, he was the perceived leading Republican candidate for president, so it got a lot of coverage.
The frequently quoted passage from his speech, especially the first three words:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
In a 2014 speech at Colorado Christian University, Scalia said “I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion. That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way. And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
Wow. These are two excellent examples! Actually, the Scalia quote is ringing bells in particular. Some might say Scalia wasn’t a politician, but considering his Nixon years and work with the AEI afterwards, I’d consider him primarily a lawyer but secondarily a politician (the definition of “politician” is itself an interesting issue).