|
What Religious Liberty?
|
Religious Persecution in the U.S.? The Church has always endured persecution. Authorities in Jerusalem tried to forbid the Apostles to preach about Christ. Mighty Rome tried to kill the new religion by means of torture and killing its adherents. In our own day we witness persecution of the Church. Recently East Timor Catholics were subjected to an organized reign of terror and a full-scale massacre there was averted by intervention of international troops. China tries to control the Church by means of appointments of bishops by the government rather than by the Holy Father. China curtails religious services of Catholics loyal to the Holy See. No one may legally enter India as a missionary and proselytizing is forbidden. In Cuba the Church cannot have schools of its own and churches seized in the revolution of 1959 have not been returned. The worst form of persecution currently is in Sudan where government manipulation of religion has reached barbaric proportions. The Muslim-Arab government tortured two captured priests and threatened them with crucifixion. All these examples are outside the United States. We Americans think, surely with our constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, things like that could not happen here. Or could they? Can we be confident that we are immune from religious persecution? In every case of persecution those in power try to eliminate a minority that is an obstacle to the implementation of its worldview or policies. Thus Rome persecuted the Church because Christians refused to bend the knee to the emperor as a god. Emperor worship was considered a necessary tool for uniting the disparate peoples of the empire. Anyone who deviated from this was a threat to the unity of the empire and therefore an enemy to be eliminated. Christians of East Timor had to be eliminated because they voted for freedom from the central Indonesian government. They had a right to do this because East Timor was taken over by force by the Indonesian government. The government feared that hundreds of other islands in the national chain would likewise want to defect and so the Christians had to be taught a lesson. Besides, the prevailing religion of the government was Muslim with no love for Christianity. China must control the Catholic Church in its midst because the Church has condemned Communism as a form of government and for its suppression of religious and human rights. In our nation we are not a threat to the government but we are a threat to the value system of many and therefore need to be controlled and, should that prove to be impossible in the future, to be eliminated. The Church is an obstacle, a burr in the side of those who refuse to believe that the commandments are still relevant and that there are universal moral absolutes. There are things that one must avoid under any and all circumstances. That does not sit well with those who dislike the commandments and find them restrictions for carrying out their policies. One of these policies is abortion. Catholics and many other Christians oppose it. We are a threat to abortionists because they fear that we may return the laws of the land to prohibiting it once again. That would deprive them of the irresponsible sex that is protected by the so-called right to abortion. Christians are a threat to those who refuse to confine sex within the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman. The Church is a latent threat for those who prefer easy sex and easy divorce. Christians are an obstacle to homosexuals and their sympathizers who want to see homosexuality given the respect now given to marriage as well as economic benefits many firms extend to heterosexual couples. There are several tactics employed by those who consider the Church an obstacle to minimize its influence. One is to marginalize and demonize the Church. (It is ironic that persons who largely do not believe in demons demonize us.) We are part of the religious right, wackos, religious nuts, kooks, loonies, ignoramuses, and fanatics. Namecalling of that sort applied to Jews of whatever persuasion, blacks, or almost any other ethnic group would be denounced as beyond the pale and would earn the well-deserved appellation of bigot. In the case of Christians, however, this sort of bashing is perfectly acceptable and the perpetrators do not even recognize it as bigotry. It also saves them from the task of debating moral issues with persons who by definition belong to the lunatic fringe. Committing them to a mental institution where they cannot hurt themselves or others might be more appropriate. Another tactic is to equate traditional morality with hate. Opposition to abortion in their eyes is nothing more than an attempt to deprive women of equality. Opposition to full sexual freedom is taken as an emblem of hate. When Christians say they hate the sin and not the sinner this, claim opponents of Christian morality, begets hate motivated violence against the homosexual community. Apparently the only way Christians can avoid being guilty of such hatred is to drop all their teachings on objective morality and particularly any moral absolutes as they apply to the sins de jour. A third tactic is to try to cleanse the alleged Christian hatred of abortionists, free sex advocates, and homosexuals is by means of laws. Christian bashers have not been very successful in using the democratic process to bring about laws to control Christian attitudes toward the immorality that they espouse, but they have achieved some triumphs by short-circuiting the legislative process and utilizing the judiciary. Thus the Supreme Court’s outlawing of laws forbidding abortion was a successful end run around non-pliant legislatures that previously voted against liberalization of abortion laws. Those promoting the acceptance of homosexual behavior are using the same tactic in the case of a Boy Scout leader who is an open and avowed homosexual and for this reason was removed from the Boy Scouts. His case is before the Supreme Court now. One would like to think that the Constitution protects the right of free association and that organizations should not be subject to having their policies and values dictated by government. Should the Supreme Court of the United States decide against the Boy Scouts of America it will have tremendous repercussions for all private organizations in the country. Will Catholic schools have to accept teachers who are known homosexuals or be guilty of discrimination? Will federal funds be withheld from Catholic schools, for example, federal lunch program assistance, should they refuse to place known homosexuals on their teaching staffs? It is not too far a reach to imagine that elimination of unwelcome ideas may someday extend to the elimination of those who possess them. The Church will always be an obstacle to the spirit of the world because it does not belong to this world. Jesus himself said that people would listen to his followers as much as they listened to him. Persecution is painful, but Jesus who was persecuted tells us to have courage because he has overcome the world.
|
| |||||||||||||