Religious Freedom, Federalism, Civil Liberties, Human Rights: A Globalized Perspective
Religious freedom is a liberated concept and law in some states. Conservatives have changed religious freedom into an idea of freedom of speech with manipulating the laws in favor of an individual religion which is a violation of the constitution and against the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not supporting any religion just religious rights. Examining federalism, civil liberties, and civil rights will provide an in depth analysis of the effects on religious freedom.
The concepts of federalism, civil liberties, and civil rights are implicated and affected by religious freedom. Conservatism and state conduct affect the positive and negative impacts of federalism and religious freedom. The First Amendment applies to the positive and negative impacts of religious freedom. Civil libertarians and religious conservatives affect positive and negative impacts of civil liberties and religious freedom. In conclusion supported evidence identifies the implications of federalism, civil rights, and civil liberties related to religious freedom.
Implications for federalism and a positive impact on religious freedom would be protecting human rights and freedom to practice a religion, non-religion, or spiritual lifestyle. Implications for federalism and a negative impact on Religious Freedom would be taking away an individuals rights related to religion such as abortion laws in different states determining if women can or cannot have abortions. According to Brownstein, A. (2010), “The strength of the state’s reason for burdening religious conduct in particular cases is not the only problem courts confront in rigorously protecting free exercise rights. A second concern involves misgivings about the propriety of the balancing process itself.”(Pg926Para3) The meaning of this evidence explains conservatism against the Free Exercise Clause and burdening of the states laws based on religious freedom. This evidence is important because it explains how religious freedom has a positive and negative implication on federalism.
Implications for civil rights and a positive impact on Religious Freedom is the religious liberty protected for citizens to practice any religion. Implications for civil rights and a negative impact on Religious Freedom is discrimination against women and domestic abuse in light of a religious practice and men having more recognition and respect in that particular religion that’s practiced. According to Lupu, I. C. (2010), “The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and that language is at least consistent with dual policy of prohibiting the creation of any national church and protecting against federal interference with the state establishments that existed as of 1791.”(Pg936Para1) The meaning of this evidence suggests that congress does not support or disagree with a religion or spiritual practice but allows citizens the freedom to practice a religion even if that religion is biased against or disliked by its nation. This evidence is important because it protects human rights.
Implications for civil liberties and a positive impact on Religious Freedom are an individuals rights to practice their lifestyle without government interference such as for example, it wouldn’t be illegal to practice Christianity in the United States as it would be in parts of the middle east. Implications for civil liberties and a negative impact on Religious Freedom are counter-terrorism and some religions becoming radicalism and creating acts of terror within the nation that allowed an individual to practice their religious freedom. According to STOLZENBERG, N. M., & NEJAIME, D. (2015), “The irony is that an issue that today is highly polarized, following the well-worn script of “culture war” politics, commanded support across the political spectrum as recently as the early 1990s. The federal RFRA was passed with the support of a coalition of liberal civil libertarians and religious conservatives, both of whom saw the right to religious exemptions as a civil right.” (Pg38Para1) The meaning of this evidence shows the effort made to protect civil rights however those rights are also abused through extremism. This evidence is important because it is the basic foundation of which there are national security issues.
Analyzing the establishment and exercise of religious freedom, this aspect of human dignity, moral, and ethical views were taken from religion and applied to the laws in the Unites States. Those laws were designed to respect human rights and religious freedom with moral and ethical guidelines which have improved over time. Improvements over time relate to the multi-cultural society clashes with disagreements and not everyone agreeing with different religious, non-religious, or spiritual practices. According to COUGHLIN, J. J. (2013), “In its historical development, the separation principle stemmed from an understanding of the human person as not merely a material but also a spiritual being with a supernatural destiny. The destiny of the human person justified the priority of the contemplative over the political in the public order. This anthropological understanding was also shared by the vast majority of Americans at the time of the framing of the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”(Pg541Para1)
An argument that claims separation of church and state is necessary to maintain religious freedom is the separation of church is important for diplomacy. According to Seib, P. (2013), “As public diplomacy has become more firmly establishes within the US foreign policy bureaucracy, the line between “traditional” and “public” diplomacy has become fuzzier in a constructive way, to the point at which delineations between the two may be false distinctions. Therefore, we considering “faith diplomacy” in its broad sense or diplomatic initiatives focusing on narrower religion-related concepts, such as religious freedom, public diplomacy should be considered not as sui generis but rather as an integral part of the diplomatic toolbox.”(Pg15Para5) If church and state were together then court would be biased based on religion and biased sentences based on a religious outline. For example the Salem Witch Trials and torturing or burning women who were condemned as witches by a Christian court during the time of no religious freedom. This is an example of how horrible this nation could be without separation of church and state and no religious freedom. It could be very restrictive on how people lived their lives and that would be like living a very dogmatic and condemning type of lifestyle.
An argument that claims separation of church and state is not necessary to maintain religious freedom; this question makes me think of a dogmatic regime type of life such as North Korea where the people are often forced to worship and praise the North Korean leader. This also makes think of some parts of the middle east where if a religious law were violated you could be tortured, stoned, hanged, burned alive, and killed in many numerous ways either slowly or quickly depending on the violation against the religion. If anyone says the separation of church and state is not necessary, then they are living a very oppressed life already and have no idea what freedom is. I feel very bad for that individual and hope they would someday be freed from their cage of a life which sounds like a horrible way to exist in the world.
The separation of church and state is necessary to maintain religious freedom because it also protects the freedom and right of humanity. It morally and ethically supports the lifestyle of anyone that is religious, non-religious, or spiritual. I think it is necessary as a human rights law for protecting people. This allows a community to connect and grow together in order to create a balance of peace within civil liberties and religious practices in multi-cultural societies.
Civil Liberties and Religious Freedom mean the freedom to speak and act within an individual’s religious, spiritual, or non-religious preference. This can be a double-edged sword meaning both good and bad based on how individuals interpret and practice religious freedom. For the most part it has met the basic needs of religious preference and gives a sense of equality. This also allows different types of churches, temples, shrines, and or unity places for religious, spiritual, or non-religious preference to practice religious expression and connect with other people in local communities as well. It builds a strong foundation for each preference so that communities can grow and support each other based on individual needs. Morally and ethically it is meeting globalization citizen expectations.
One real world positive example of civil liberties and religious freedom would be allowing children or teenagers with a religious preference to have prayer or prayer services including a Chaplin related to their religious preference at public schools. Another positive example would be religious based educational institutions such as pre-school. elementary, high-school, colleges, and universities all based on different types or specifically relating to a religious preference. This allows a young or adult religious individual to reach their educational goals while studying and using their religious lifestyle.
Without civil liberties and religious freedom then there would be an increase in religious discrimination and no ethical or moral views on a religion, spiritual practice, or non-religion. This would create a overwhelming amount of prejudice and possibly increase religious based hate crimes as a result of oppression. Multi-cultural and communities within the united states which are religious or spiritual would most likely protest the injustices of no civil liberties and demand rights or a civil war would break out until a demand was met. Oddly there are similar events happening now in 2017 within the united states of multi-cultural citizens challenging the government and congress over religious freedom of expression and associating that with immigration and citizenship in what appear to be a mass protest.
One real world negative example of civil liberties and religious freedom would be allowing a religious group to practice their religious practices and that specific religion happens to have a reoccurring pattern of extremism deriving from it which causes acts of violence and domestic or international terrorism. This is a progressing pattern here in the united states and internationally in unbiased or unprejudiced regards to Muslims. The media makes it appear to be biased and prejudiced but, there is a clear pattern of extremism deriving from the religious practices used by Muslims and because of those patterns associated with domestic and international terrorism, there needs to be a plan of action to prevent this reoccurring pattern. Right now the united states wants to send back a majority of immigrants and non-Americans out of the country due to this pattern to prevent future attacks and extremism. In the process, the media has focused on only an extreme Liberal view of prejudiced which has increased the amount of hate crimes against law enforcement, military, and government officials. This has also increased hate crimes against whites and women. According to Greene, A. S. (2015), “On Establishment Clause grounds, the Supreme Court invalidated legislation expressly based in religious justification. The Court permitted some legislative accommodation of religion. And the Court said the Free Exercise Clause requires exemptions from state action that burdens religious practice, even if unintentionally.”(Pg162Para1)
Civil Rights focuses on the equality of all rights relating to any gender, religious preference, citizenship, and political and social freedom. Religious Freedom is the freedom to practice a religious, spiritual, or non-religious lifestyle without the law saying an individual can or cannot practice their religious or spiritual views as long as they are non-violent and don’t cause any harm to an individual or others. Civil rights affect religious freedom when a religious preference takes over the civil right of an individual such as a Muslim religion which does not take a woman’s preference over a mans, that is violating the woman’s civil rights to not allow her to practice the same religious practices that a man can or how to live a lifestyle. If a religion restricts an individual against their will to leave when they desire to do so then it is a violation of their civil rights and this is when the law becomes involved.
One real world positive example of civil rights and religious freedom is allowing people of different religious, spiritual, or non-religious preference to share their views or ideas and practices with others freely through speech. Examples would be people holding up signs on street corners which state a religious verse or reference in relation to their religion at grabbing the attention of the general public towards their religious preference. Another example would be a religious practice requiring door to door seeking with handing out pamphlets and spreading word of the religion. Another example that I have seen is a handwritten bible verse on the beach and tiny bible reference written on sea shells and thrown about in different areas of the sand because of civil rights and religious freedom people can do this.
One real world negative example of civil rights and religious freedom would be a religious practice prejudiced against a lifestyle such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals and showing a great amount of discrimination against them through hate speech and acts of violence such as burning down someone’s business or home because they are gay and the religious group did it based on their extremist views. There have been an increasing amount of hate crimes and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals and it has only become worse into 2017. The amount of violent hate crimes are being committed mainly by extremist Muslims groups which are either from internationally territory or domestic inspired by international extremist based on an individual’s family cultural background being Muslim and from a country of extremism. Allowing religious freedom has introduced violent practices and views of a type of religion that has no benevolence but pure hatred in wanting to destroy all other religions and individual points of views. It is a fact that most of the hate crimes committed against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals have been committed by the extremist religious community.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) communities in the united states no not have equal rights. Only certain communities are recognized but, not all have the same civil or religious rights. According to WILSON, R. F. (2015), “More importantly, the shadow cast over the democratic process by the possibility that the Court will strike all remaining bans obscures important struggles by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals for other much-needed civil rights-namely, acquiring statewide protections from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations in the twenty-nine states without such protections. Thus, the deep irony is that same-sex couples can marry in large parts of the country where the LGBT community lacks these basic protections.”(Pg953-954Para1) This is an ongoing controversy now in 2017.
From a globalization perspective of global citizens and coming together as an equal community of unity and benevolent consciousness then peace would exist and would work among all multi-cultural societies. This is only a tested theory which like in Sweden a globalized perspective and aspect apply in meeting the united states standards of educational goals and working with international students but, there is a lack of understanding on the complete unity and benevolence in its representation of a political civil liberties. In a global theory of civil liberties existing instead of civil liberties existing in one nation it allows a broad perspective on nations coming together to reach an objective or goal of meeting basic needs of the citizens of each nation making it easier for communication, international travel, international trade, and international education. This would also help improve multiple economies affecting healthcare, scientific communities within medical science, engineering, and environmental /agricultural. The most important part of this would be implementing a global perspective on civil liberties and introducing what a united effort in the consciousness of understanding this global union would allow the next big step in future generations to improve the lifestyle of citizens around the world working on improving educational and economic foundations.
Without religion and there being freedom, it seems the problem is completely removed. The idea being a religion interferes with the human thought perspective with a conflict on processing how their ideas must be in correlation with a religion or spiritual practice if they are brought up in a religious or spiritual type of lifestyle which is forced upon them. For example a society in which a religion is law and if that religion is violated then there are consequences of punishment, imprisonment, or death. In this type of lifestyle an individual is confined to an oppressive lifestyle and they only know this lifestyle but take that individual for an example and introduce them to a new type of society and lifestyle such as a western lifestyle in the united states and a religion of peace and benevolence would challenge that individuals beliefs and foundation of their oppressive lifestyle they were used to living.
In this example there is a conflict and one individual from an oppressive society not agreeing or being open to a new lifestyle or way of life in a loving and benevolent form of society and it introduced violence in work places, schools, and other place where it might be liberal and open to all perspectives but, because of the oppressed individual from their dogmatic views and way of thinking nothing can be changed in their perspective. This is why there is an increasing amount of hate crimes and violence in the united states because of extremist Muslims not agreeing with the western philosophy or various religions, spiritual practices, or non-religions. Yet, there is freedom of religious rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and freedom of speech which is fully taken advantage of and abused through the mass protests often violent or representing violence and hate speech which people like extremist liberals have manipulated into an idea of freedom and peace. Unfortunately there are now political parties whom act similarly to extremist religious groups which burn down local businesses, cars, loot and steal, commit hate crimes and violence against police, and hate crimes against government, military, and now whites. Its turned into an upside-down world with extremist liberalism.
The question on everyone’s mind in 2017 is what will this nation become with the new changes in government and law. There are some exciting positive possibilities of handling debt, improving the economy with more American jobs and environmental measures for improving the environment and sustainability, improving education such as the idea of free education and building American military to make it a stronger and safer country. Those are the things I’m looking forward to but, what I don’t like are all the political pitfalls and loopholes which judges are ruling against the president and congress making a decision for a nation based on an extremist liberal perspective which only motivates those groups to act out more with hate speech and protests against the nation. Honestly, if people don’t like living in this country and don’t like the laws then why don’t they just leave instead of causing this nation to lose so much money due to their constant protesting and drama. This is not only costing the government but, it’s costing small businesses and destroying the economy in the process.
The change this nation needs is to introduce what civil liberties and civil rights were originally created for and not this nonsense and abuse of taking advantage of these rights. Religious freedom already has so much in favor in regards to civil rights and liberties within the united states so the protests about a religious group being a minority is only media inspired. Something is wrong with the country today and how this media inspired hatred is growing. This is truly a disturbing and unknowing time of how things will turn out in this country. If people focused on peace instead of the hate speech and protesting then life would be easier and people would have to feel like they lived in such a horrible place as the media depicts.
In Conclusion federalism, civil liberties, and civil rights all have positive and negative implications for religious freedom. The First Amendment protects individual rights to practice any religion, non-religion, or spiritual lifestyle. Civil rights are the basis of protecting human rights however they have recently created a burden of counter-terrorism measures which questions the nations national security efforts today.
Brownstein, A. (2010). WHY CONSERVATIVES, AND OTHERS, HAVE TROUBLE SUPPORTING THE MEANINGFUL ENFORCEMENT OF FREE EXERCISE RIGHTS. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 33(3), 925-933.
Lupu, I. C. (2010). FEDERALISM AND FAITH REDUX. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 33(3), 935-942.
STOLZENBERG, N. M., & NEJAIME, D. (2015). INTRODUCTION: RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION IN THE AGE OF CIVIL RIGHTS. Harvard Journal Of Law & Gender, 38vii-xiii.
COUGHLIN, J. J. (2013). Separation, Cooperation, and Human Dignity in Church-State Relations. Jurist: Studies In Church Order & Ministry, 73(2), 539-554. doi:10.1353/jur.2013.0027
Seib, P. (2013). RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND US PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. Review Of Faith & International Affairs, 11(1), 15-21. doi:10.1080/15570274.2012.760980
Greene, A. S. (2015). Religious Freedom and (Other) Civil Liberties: Is There a Middle Ground? Harvard Law & Policy Review, 9(1), 161-193.
WILSON, R. F. (2015). BARGAINING FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM MRS. MURPHY FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND LGBT RIGHTS. Boston University Law Review, 95(3), 951-993.