The religious right nationally, and persons of Utah’s predominant
religion locally, have increasingly put a litmus test on acceptable political leaders.
Believe like us or you are not acceptable or qualified to be a political or
governmental leader. I find this belief frightening and yet it seems to be
growing each year. The holders of this
belief seem to have forgotten that one of the primary reasons for Europeans to
head to the new world was for religious freedom. The Mormons migrated to Utah for religious freedom. But this growing sentiment that a candidate must espouse the orthodoxy or such candidate is not worthy to be elected is troubling.
One of the things I studied so many years ago in my political science classes at the University of Utah was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
The next two paragraphs are from (http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/vsrf.htm)
Jefferson had argued
in the Declaration of Independence that "the laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle [man]…." The first paragraph of the religious statute
proclaims one of those entitlements, freedom of thought. To Jefferson,
"Nature's God," who is undeniably visible in the workings of the
universe, gives man the freedom to choose his religious beliefs. This is the
divinity whom deists of the time accepted—a God who created the world and is
the final judge of man, but who does not intervene in the affairs of man. This
God who gives man the freedom to believe or not to believe is also the God of
the Christian sects. (http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/vsrf.htm)
Here is Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom. Read it carefully and ask yourself how you feel about.
2. That the impious presumption of
legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves
but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others,
setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and
infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established
and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through
all time;
3. That to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is
sinful and tyrannical;
4. That even the forcing him to support
this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the
comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose
morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to
righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards,
which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an
additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of
mankind;
5. That our civil rights have no
dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or
geometry,
6. That therefore the proscribing any
citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of
being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce
this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those
privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has
a natural right,
7. That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
8. That though indeed, these are criminal
who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay
the bait in their way;
9. That to suffer the civil magistrate to
intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous
fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course
judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve
or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ
from his own;
10. That it is time enough for the rightful
purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles
break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
11. And finally, that Truth is great, and
will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human
interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors
ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by
General Assembly that
· no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,
· nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
· nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief,
· but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law;
I
think that the religious right should understand that not only should the
government not control the religious right’s religion or anyone else's religion, but the religious right
should not have their religion control the government or governmental leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment