Religion and government should not be enemies. But let‟s not be naive about Radical Islam.
Religion is clearly an area where conservatives get some of the worst press from the mainstream media.
Mention the words “moral majority” or “religious right” and any good liberal gets more scared than if a hoard of bomb belt-strapped Al Queda fighters showed up on their front lawn. It is all rather silly yet the fact is there is a great religious divide in 21st century America. For adherents, religion is a core part of their lives. The reality is that America was founded by Christians, and Judeo-Christian morals play a major part in our laws and sense of morality. Further, many have come to America over the years fleeing religious persecution in other countries. Yet agnostics or atheists, whose numbers appear to be growing, often scorn the religious as hopelessly misguided fools stuck in the past who don‟t understand we must get beyond the whole God thing.
Some go even further and blame religion for everything bad that‟s ever happened in the world. How can an American society comprised of such diametrically opposed viewpoints ever hope to agree on a core set of principles and values about anything, as suggested in the previous chapter?
The principled conservative understands that America is based on the principle of freedom to worship or not to worship whatever one wishes. This is the guiding principle. The only exception or caveat is when one‟s religious or non-religious practice endangers others, and here we will use the compelling example of radical Islam. For those adherents who support, encourage, and or justify suicide bombings, we rightly acknowledge there is no place for you as an American citizen; you may want to consider France or Belgium. This book cannot possibly devote the time, space, or expertise to explore the deeper question of whether radical Islam is a perversion of Islam or an accurate reflection of what the Koran recommends. For the purposes of the principled conservative, it does not matter because actions speak louder than words. If any religion (or non-religious article of political faith like Communism) features adherents who do not accept the values of a free society even while living in its midst and benefiting from its freedoms—then they pose a danger to society and cannot be permitted to live and proselytize in the free republic. Indeed, as witnessed by the 2009 outrageous murder spree by the Army jihad shrink at Ft. Hood, Texas, it is not clear the killer saw any irony in wiling away his spare time in strip clubs (which of course America presumably has in abundance compared to any totalitarian/terrorist Islamic state).
To reiterate, the principle of a properly designed free republic is the right to freely worship the religion of choice or no religion at all. The only caveat would be when the worship endangers other non-believers or attempts the overthrow of government or society. As noted, Radical Islam falls into this exception and the principled conservative would argue for consistency sake that the same restrictions would apply to any religion seeking to overthrow the U.S. government and/or oppress all other religions. It just happens that Radical Islam is the only major religion on the stage at the moment that falls into this category. The typical liberal/progressive harbors the delusion that there are only one or two such Muslims in the world, and the rest are very nice, moderate people. Sadly, the reality is the reverse. While it‟s hard make an exact estimate of the number of radical Islamic extremists worldwide, their numbers are at least in the tens of millions. While some may raise a cautionary note about the difficulty and danger of having the government investigate whether the tenets of a religious faith cross the line, in the present situation the proponents of radical Islam have made it rather easy.
They say it and write it repeatedly, advocating against democratic government and for the rejection of freedom of religion, except for Islam. If this is what is being preached in any mosque, the principled conservative would argue that in our society such religious practice can be restricted because freedom of speech and freedom of worship does not mean freedom to overthrow the government or restrict others‟ religious freedom.
Putting aside the special justified treatment of Radical Islam, public policy should be neither endorsing nor hostile to religion, but neutral. This is a simple principle that has been misinterpreted by the courts over the past fifty years. Under the First Amendment, clearly America cannot have an official, established religion. So to say America is a Christian nation is incorrect. The American, as described in the previous chapter, can be an adherent to any religion or none. Tolerance is what makes the person a cultural American. That being said, religious believers are free to proclaim freely why their religion is superior to all others. The key in America is that we do this peaceably, without violence or threats of violence. One should be perfectly free to say that Judaism is far superior to Christianity or Islam—you may be wrong, and those who disagree can debate you to their heart‟s content, but you have a right to preach as you wish. However, if you walk over to the Mosque or the Methodist church down the block, break windows and spray paint insulting graffiti, you have no right to do so and have broken the law.
So much of the Supreme Court‟s constitutional law interpretations concerning religious freedom and separation of church and state has focused on ridiculous minutiae over whether nativity scenes can be displayed on public property. How that establishes a religion or compels anyone to practice one is quite perplexing. It is similar to those who have mental contortions over “In God we Trust” on coins. Should we melt them all down and start over? Again, for a country that was founded by many seeking religious freedom, it would be strange to support policies that remove religion from any mention in the public realm, as if it were a virus to be avoided. Must a Christmas tree now be declared merely a holiday shrubbery? Much of the current legal morass started with atheists who were concerned that school prayer would pressure their children to consider the existence of God.
Religious minorities in America, that is non-Christian religions, understandably are sensitive to any implication that the government is favoring Christianity over all other religions.
How to resolve this? The principled conservative supports the principles of official neutrality and tolerance, with protection of vigorous free speech and debate. So having religious displays open to any religion as desired in a town or city should be acceptable under the law. If a village has 99 Christians and 1 Muslim family, can they allow a nativity scene on the Village Green? The principled conservative says yes, so long as that Muslim family or indeed any other family has the right to put up their own display if so inclined. Add to this scenario one atheist family. They also, if desired, can be permitted a display (perhaps a Richard Dawkins book with a sign saying “there is no God.”) So long as it is not obscene language the principled conservative would view this as the free expression of ideas. But let us not turn such debate of religious ideas into a hate crime. If the atheist decides to sit among the display of godlessness to talk up the benefits of atheism, he or she must be prepared to accept that some may hurl insults back (e.g. “you‟re a moron.”) Unless there is violence or the threat of violence, this is simply what free speech is all about. It‟s no different if the Christian display proprietor encounters a visitor fresh from Karl Marx University who asks why does Christianity cause all the wars and misery of humanity? We never said that free speech had to be accurate or even in the ballpark. Much like other issues discussed throughout this book, the principled conservative wants to dissect and debate every debatable issue. And in the area of religion, how could there NOT be debate? The existence of God can never be proven, so what could be possibly be more debatable? It is doubtful anyone who ever asks the following question at a (obviously seriously intellectual) cocktail party as to “what is the meaning of our existence?” would ever get the response that “that question is so well-settled and beyond dispute that I think you‟re an idiot for even raising it!”
The principled conservative does sadly recognize the decline in knowledge and civility concerning religious discussions. The many failings of public schools were explored in an earlier chapter, and certainly their incompetence in connecting religion‟s role in history is both negligent and intentional. Discussions about religion and their history should not be taboo, because this encourages thinking, reading, and scholarship.
Would it be such a bad thing if more Americans read the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran? Of course not. We would say even to the atheist or agnostic that you would be well served to read closely and understand what you are rejecting. And to the believer, it wouldn‟t hurt to have a better understanding of what you believe. The principled conservative would ask how can a human being claim to be in pursuit of excellence in life (by this meaning family, work, relationships, etc.) and not personally explore the basic question of why are we here and what do I believe? And of course we mean a serious pursuit, not just a French shrug and shake of a cigarette while commenting on the absurdity of existence.47
To summarize, the principled conservative accepts and understands basic human nature and the scientifically unfathomable nature of our existence. We understand the reality that no one knows for sure or will likely ever know while living on Planet Earth as to whether there is a God or if any of the currently practiced religions is
“correct.” Fortunately in a free and civil society we don‟t need the answer. We accept this uncertainty of faith.
The principle conservative just demands a government that safeguards religious freedom.
What about abortion?
It is not surprising why abortion has remained one of the most contentious political issues since the Supreme Court‟s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, because it challenges so many assumptions and principles for those of all political persuasions. Science absolutely shows that a fetus is a human life, and viable outside of the womb at even earlier points in a pregnancy thanks to advances in science and technology. Abortion is an abhorrent, horrible procedure as any doctor or nurse who has ever performed can attest. And while Planned Parenthood would disagree, probably a solid majority of Americans would agree that abortion is absolutely the worst possible form of “birth control.”
Yet, the principled conservative supports individual freedom and privacy as well as lack of government influence and control over one‟s personal decisions, even when those decisions may be misguided or wrong (so long as the law is not violated). And there is hardly a much more private matter than a pregnancy. The principled conservative would then say abortion is to be banned or limited only if it breaks the law, which of course begs the question of what the law should be. Is it possible to straddle a middle ground between the position of abortion on demand versus those declaring it to be murder in every circumstance? The principled conservative should say yes, as abortion falls into the dicey area of both religious beliefs and sexuality. Both are areas that government should protect and stay out of the business of regulating or prosecuting unless others are harmed either potentially or actually. The principled conservative must deal with society as it is and acknowledges there is no wide-spread consensus for treating abortion like homicide—a requirement for converting a religious belief into the secular criminal law. But while not illegal, abortion should never have been declared a fundamental right. Religious believers should have every right to convince others of their belief that the practice is immoral. And would it really be harmful to any woman to fully understand the procedure and what it looks like? This means a full disclosure of information, not a sanitized neat “I am woman hear me roar”
pro-choice version. There should be more education and awareness. And the principled conservative should support limitations on funding, as well as appropriate regulations concerning consent and parental notification that can be as broad as any state decides. We will not detour here to delve into the legal issues of the current confused state of Supreme Court and lower court jurisprudence in the wake of Roe v. Wade; we are only suggesting the general direction that should be taken. The strategies to get there are a separate discussion. This indeed may be one of the few times the principled conservative will quote President Clinton, who opined that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. He said it, but we‟re not sure he meant it. We mean it. And we think that when the full range of information and choices and education are available, few will choose abortion—other than in cases of rape or incest. And further, government should promote adoptions to the hilt. Finally, procedures such as partial birth abortions should be rightly condemned and banned.48 Put simply, if this procedure is not morally wrong and evil, it‟s not clear what else would qualify.