Does the New War on Extremism Threaten Religious Liberty?
by Jeff Lindsay
Extremist feet (size 13) in even more extreme shoes. Photo taken at the Holland display in Royal Park Rajapruek, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2015.
Three
years ago, Wesley
J. Smith writing for FirstThings.com warned of a clever assault on freedom
of religion in which it was being replaced with freedom of worship.
Wait, aren't they the same thing? That's what some people would like
us to think, but there is a vital difference.
When
governments provide only for "freedom of worship," they may
be willing to allow you to worship as you wish in official houses of
worship, but when it comes to how you live your life the rest of the
time, practicing your religion becomes more of a problem.
Smith
warned that in spite of explicit protection for religious freedom in
the U.S. Constitution and even in the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (Article 18), that religious liberty is being limited in
many ways:
Strident
secularism is on the march and freedom of religion is the target,
with secularist warriors attempting to drive religious practice
behind closed doors by redefining religious liberty down to a
hyper-restricted, “freedom of worship.”
In
his list of specific examples of trouble spots, Smith warned that
Obamacare would force those who oppose abortion on moral and
religious grounds to provide or facilitate that gruesome service,
contrary to their religious beliefs. His concerns have proven to be
grounded in reality. As Sarah
Torre wrote at Heritage.org in 2014:
Perhaps
the most egregious example of this whittling away of religious
liberty is Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate. The legal
showdown over the now famous rule entered a new round last week.
The
federal government continued its fight to force the Little Sisters of
the Poor, a Catholic charity dedicated to caring for the elderly
poor, to cover abortion-inducing drugs and contraception in violation
of their faith.
While
the Supreme Court stopped enforcement of the mandate against some
family businesses, non-profit religious organizations like the Little
Sisters remain in danger of devastating fines for not complying with
the coercive rule.
Unfortunately,
the Obama administration’s HHS mandate is hardly the only
assault on religious freedom and the right of conscience in the
United States.
Obamacare
is finding new ways to force individuals and families to pay for
health plans that cover elective abortions. The law’s lack of
transparency about abortion coverage, coupled with a mandatory
abortion surcharge, is so serious an affront to conscience that it
has led at least one family to file a federal lawsuit.
The
health care law also only includes limited protections for medical
professionals who decline to participate in, perform, or refer for
abortion because of their moral or religious beliefs. Those loose
protections, coupled with the administration’s weakened
guidance on federal conscience regulations, could endanger the
ability of doctors, nurses and hospitals to continue working in
accordance with their values.
Outside
the doctor’s office and beyond the intricacies of health
insurance, Americans are also facing new threats to their freedom to
work in accordance with their beliefs about marriage. With the
redefinition of marriage in a number of states (more often through
the rulings of judges than the votes of citizens) has come increasing
intolerance in both culture and law toward those who believe marriage
is the union of one man and one woman.
Most
recently, a couple who runs a farm in upstate New York was fined
$13,000 for declining to rent their family farm for a same-sex
wedding ceremony. Others involved in the wedding industry, like
photographers, florists and cake makers, have been hauled into court
for declining to use their artistic talents to participate in
same-sex weddings.
Facing
coercion by state governments to place children with same-sex
couples, some Christian adoption agencies have even been forced to
end foster care and adoption services rather than abandon their
belief that children do best with a married mother and father.
In
July of 2015, Little
Sisters of the Poor suffered a major setback when
a Federal Court ordered them to comply with the HHS mandate to
subsidize contraceptive and some abortion services for employees or
face large fines from the IRS.
These
Catholic sisters are free to listen to mass in Latin, English, or
Vulcan if they wish, but when it comes to living their lives
according to their religion, their freedom is curtailed as the State
tries to compel them to promote something they find evil and
reprehensible.
Freedom
of worship is not much better than freedom of belief, and both are
far less than the fundamental freedom that our Founding Fathers
sought to protect. Freedom of religion should be the law of the land
in the United States and other nations that have ascribed to that
sacred concept, but it is being replaced with the much more limited
freedom of worship or belief.
The
difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship came up
again in the past couple of weeks when a U.S.
Senator grilled Homeland Security about
a subtle change in wording on the government's test for immigrants to
the U.S. who wish to become citizens:
A
Republican senator from Oklahoma pressed Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at a hearing Wednesday about why the
U.S. is “misrepresenting” Americans’ First
Amendment right to freedom of religion to immigrants who are applying
to become U.S. citizens.
“We
in the United States actually have freedom of religion, not freedom
of worship,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Johnson
yesterday during a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
hearing.
Lankford
was referring to the department’s decision to include “freedom
of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” as a
basic American right listed in the civics test that all immigrants
must take to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The
difference needs to be understood. Attempts to replace the greater
freedom with the lesson one should be called out. Personally, I don't
think the change in wording is just a careless mistake, but is part
of a broad trend that will continue to whittle away at religious
freedom.
Here
in China, where the social, religious, and political situation is
much different than in the U.S.,
I am happy to report that we do have freedom of belief. In fact, we
foreign LDS members enjoy currently surprisingly generous freedom of
worship, provided that we carefully respect the law and avoid
proselyting among native Chinese.
(If
you come to visit or live in China, please come worship with us, but
don't bring religious literature to give to Chinese people, and don't
get into detailed conversations with them about matters of faith —
respect the law here!)
In
terms of officially condoned public worship, it is generally
restricted to official locations provided for the five
state-recognized religions in China: the Buddhist Association of
China, the Chinese Taoist Association, the Islamic Association of
China, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (a Protestant organization)
and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (which does not
recognize the Vatican), whose leaders are generally members of the
Communist Party or selected by the Party's Administration of
Religious Affairs.
Latter-day
Saints are not among the official five, of course, but in several
areas foreign-passport-holding Latter-day Saints like myself can meet
and worship together rather freely at very nice facilities, provided
only foreign-passport holders attend our meetings.
We
are intensely grateful for this freedom, and we strive to respect the
laws of China in order to preserve this right and the trust that has
been given us. Given China's history and current needs and concerns,
I can understand the reasons for China's policies.
In
the U.S.,
however, our heritage and fundamental privilege extends much beyond
freedom of belief or freedom of worship. I hope that freedom of religion can be
preserved as well. Here in China, in my opinion, the trend over the
past few decades has been one of increasing freedoms, while the trend
in the West appears to me to be one of decreasing freedoms.
Unfortunately,
even freedom of belief and freedom of worship in the U.S.
and the West in general may soon come under fire. At least that's my
cynical take on the news that the United States is collaborating with
the United Nations to help stamp out ideologies (belief systems) that
they label "extremist."
Here's
part of the Sept.
29, 2015 announcement straight from the United Nations,
which begins by discussing the obvious problem of terrorism —
now called "violent extremism," but paves the way for
dealing with much broader issues and belief systems than the small
groups that like to spread terror:
The
Leaders’ Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, hosted by
United States President Barack Obama on the margins of the General
Assembly’s annual high-level debate, brought together
representatives from more than 100 nations, more than 20 multilateral
institutions, some 120 civil society groups from around the world,
and partners from the private sector.
“Addressing
this challenge goes to the heart of the mission of the United
Nations, and it requires a unified response,” stated the
Secretary-General, who intends to present a comprehensive Plan of
Action to Prevent Violent Extremism early next year to the General
Assembly.
“Our
objective must be to go beyond countering violent extremism to
preventing it in the first place,” he added.
In
this regard, he outlined five key priorities: the need to engage
all of society; the need to make a special effort to reach young
people; to build truly accountable institutions; respect for
international law and human rights; and the importance of not
being ruled by fear — or provoked by those who strive to
exploit it.
“We
have a major challenge before us — one that will not disappear
overnight — but one that we can address concretely by
forging societies of inclusion, ensuring lives of dignity, and
pursuing this essential endeavour inspired at all times by the United
Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Opening
the meeting, President Obama said that it is not going to be enough
to defeat ISIL in the battlefield.
“We
have to prevent it from radicalizing, recruiting and inspiring others
to violence in the first place. And this means defeating their
ideology. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re
defeated by better ideas — a more attractive and compelling
vision.” ...
And
in all countries, it is vital to continue to build true partnerships
with Muslim communities, based on trust and cooperation, so that they
can help protect their loved ones from becoming radicalized, Mr.
Obama continued.
“This
cannot just be the work of government. It is up to all of us. We
have to commit ourselves to build diverse, tolerant, inclusive
societies that reject anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry that
creates the divisions, the fear and the resentments upon which
extremists can prey. [emphasis mine]
Does
it take a lot of paranoid imagination to see how "engaging all
of society" and reshaping the minds of the young to denounce and
curtail those who allegedly "exploit fear," threaten
"dignity" (the sweeping new right mysteriously found in the
Constitution that overturned the right of States to regulate and
define marriage), and create "divisions" (i.e.,
disagreement with sanctioned PC views) could point to government
intrusions in not just freedom of religion, but even freedom of
belief?
After
all, these statements imply that it is the belief systems that are
responsible for extremism in the first place, and not just the
relatively tiny fringe groups who exploit Islam in some parts of the
world to promote terror. The language of this UN announcement shows
that much broader religious belief systems are being targeted.
In
fact, for many of our elite opponents, religion, especially Christian
religion and most especially conservative Christian religion such as
Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism, is inherently extreme,
divisive, bigoted, hateful, and fear-based. In their view, opposition
to their political or social goals is an expression of hate and
bigotry.
There
is a divide, but divisiveness is due only to the existence of
opponents on the other side. Their anger is just righteous
indignation toward the unrighteous hate of the others. Tolerance is
not a two-way street, but a strictly enforced one-way road.
Do
you think there is no threat that some of the power-hungry who
despise religion, if given the opportunity and power, will hesitate
to make further incursions into the liberties that we now enjoy or
once enjoyed?
If
you don't believe that there might be a little bait-and-switch ruse
in this effort to reshape global society, ask yourself this: If the
problem being addressed is ISIS and the terrorism of other militant
Islamist groups, then why does the mission of this international
effort depart from stomping out militant Islamic groups and capturing
the most dangerous terrorists among them (some of whom may be posing
as immigrants crossing borders without documentation), instead morphing
to the new goal of "reject[ing]
anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry that creates the divisions,
the fear and the resentments upon which extremists can prey"?
Whoa,
it's you allegedly anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant folks who are
causing all that bloodshed? That's the real enemy now? Or maybe it's
actually you anti-abortion folks who are the real problem here.
You
can be as pro-Muslim and pro-immigrant as you want (for example, I'll
take Daniel Peterson as a wonderful example of a Mormon who deeply
respects Islam and has given us tools to appreciate it), but if
you're in the cross-hairs of those who despise your particular
religion, I bet the eye of the beholder will see something that looks
horrifically ugly, or rather, divisive, bigoted, and extreme.
Admittedly,
that's an extreme opinion. Just one more reason (in addition to my
shoe size) why I'm an extremist in need of reeducation or something.
And yes, the broad statements in the UN announcement have not been
passed into law yet.
That
won't happen, of course, until we go through the complex and often
lengthy process involving both Houses of Congress and loaded with
checks and balances as described in the U.S.
Constitution — or until an executive order is issued, which
takes about 10 minutes on a Friday afternoon.
So
is there really any risk that the U.S.
government might somehow brand large numbers of Christians as
"extremists" who might need the helpful attention and
services of, say, the U.S. military? Is that utterly paranoid and ridiculous? A clue about the
probability of such a bizarre situation might be found in an incident
in 2013, as
reported by Nicola Menzie in The Christian Post:
A
U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief describes
"Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism" as
examples of "religious extremism," according to the
Archdiocese for the Military Services and the Chaplain Alliance for
Religious Liberty, who shared a copy of the documents with The
Christian Post.
"The
number of hate groups, extremists and anti-govt
organizations in the U.S. has continued to grow over the past three
years, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They
increased to 1,018 in 2011, up from 1,002 in 2010 and 602 in 2000,"
reads the first page of the slide presentation labeled "Extremism
& Extremist Organizations."
Listed
alongside "extremist" groups and organizations like the Klu
Klux Klan and al-Qaida, the U.S. Army slideshow has "Evangelical
Christianity" as the first bullet, followed by the Muslim
Brotherhood, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and farther down on the slide,
Catholicism.
According
to the training documents, "Extremism is a complex phenomenon"
that is present in every religion due to "some followers that
believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only
'right way' and that all others are practicing their faith the 'wrong
way,' seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all
others."
Here's
the offending slide from the presentation to U.S.
soldiers, published by the Christian Post.
As
you can see, the list of religious extremists leads with
Evangelicals. Further down is Catholicism. Toward the end is
"Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Real
Mormons aren't on the list, I'm relieved to report. Whew, close call,
but looks like we're safe, right? Perhaps, unless you also affiliate
with the Jewish Defense League (I think some Mormons might) or have a
very strong dislike of Islam ("Islamophobia").
That's
not me, for the record, but I suspect there are some Mormons that
fall into that camp. And some Mormons who converted from Catholicism
might still retain some of their former "extremist" ways.
Of
course, this list is not meant to be complete. The list of potential
extremists and their insidious traits could become very, very long.
The shoes of extremism are so big that they can fit almost any foot,
when it suits the accuser.
Of
course, once Catholics, Evangelicals, and perhaps some other targeted
"extremists" got wind of this, they objected and the U.S.
government quickly washed its hands, pointing out that this was an
isolated incident, not representative of what the military is really
doing, etc., etc. Maybe it was just a rare, inexplicable mistake.
But
the organization that helped prepare the materials appears to still
be in good standing as an important ally of the Administration. Watch
for more efforts to give government more tools and more power to
fight the never-ending battle against the extremist spooks that haunt
dark corners everywhere.
A
crack down on "extremism" of
any kind could
be a beautiful tool for those who seek ever more power for
government. It's not just the U.S.
government (and the UN) calling for this. David Cameron, Prime
Minister of the UK, gave
a speech at the United Nations last year calling for something similar:
We
must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal
with all forms of extremism — not just violent extremism.
For
governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must
ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe
organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and
abroad.
We
must work together to take down illegal online material like the
recent videos of ISIL murdering hostages. And we must stop the
so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and
intolerance in our schools, our universities and yes, even our
prisons.
Athough
we all may dislike hate and intolerance, the danger is in defining
those terms. If I'm the one making that call, should you be worried
that anti-Mormon speech might be treated as hate speech? Will I find
you are suffering from Mormophobia or Christophobia and need a few
months in a reeducation camp?
No,
I wouldn't do that — but do you want to find out what a Mormon
would do with that kind of power? Should we give anyone that kind of
power?
Some
of the abuses we've already seen with "hate speech"
legislation and policies suggest that an all-out international effort
on stamping out any form of "extremism" that politicians dislike could be a very
dangerous thing. Note, however, that extremism in government power
will never be on the official list of extremism to stamp out.
May
all Americans, whatever our faith, stand up for freedom of religion,
not just freedom of worship and belief. Let me know what you think —
but please don't say anything that might be viewed as divisive,
bigoted, or extreme. I've got your IP address, and may have to report
you. Make sure your words create a society of inclusion and harmony —
or else.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.