Over the years, the more I have understood the intricate details of notion and concept of universal constitutional human rights in a free democratic society, the more admiration I have grown for the incredible vision, wisdom and foresight of the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the United States, especially when it comes to their crafting of the United States Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights. And from the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment.
While the fundamental notions established by the First Amendment were not completely unprecented even when it was drafted (in 1791), it was still quite groundbreaking and way ahead of its time, and it showed an incredible amount of foresight.
The First Amendment consists of five fundamental rights of citizens (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peacebly assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances), limiting the actions of the government, some of them almost unprecedented and quite groundbreaking for the time.
One particular groundbreaking government-limiting rule was the so-called Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Back in the 1700's people in Europe were highly religious, and being a Christian was kind of a given, and it was likewise a given in almost every country that the government was Christian and religious. Starting the Bill of Rights with the prohibition of the government from establishing any religion (ie. the government is banned from recognizing any religion as the "official" religion of the country) was rather unprecedented and extremely foresightful. Even more important was the prohibition against limiting the exercise of religion (which was quite common at the time in many European countries, when it came to non-Christian religions).
Constitutional scholars and, especially, federal courts have time and again interpreted the spirit of the Establishment Clause to cover more than just Congress passing laws. The spirit of the clause is interpreted, in general, to cover any endorsement by the government of a religion or religious practice, or the banning or punishment of religious practice, even if it's not a law that's being proposed or has been approved. For example, if a police officer (who is seen as a member of the law enforcement branch of the government) were to compel someone to participate in a religious activity, or were to intimidate or arrest someone for religious activity, that's pretty much always interpreted by courts to be unconstitutional and thus forbidden (even though it's not a law that Congress is trying to pass).
In other words, governmental entities, such as for example city councils, cannot weasel themselves out of having to obey the First Amendment by using a loophole like "this is not a law we are passing" if they, for example, endorse or forbid the practice of a particular religion, or support it in some manner (such as monetarily). This goes against the spirit of the clause, and thus generally seen as against the Constitution.
However, there's another loophole in the Establishment Clause (besides the "shall make no law") that could potentially be abused to bypass it. And this one can be much harder to counter.
And that's the fuzzy definition of the word "religion".
In other words, if Congress would want to endorse and even pass laws establishing a religion, all they need to do is to argue that "it's not a religion", and have the other branches of the government and the majority of the people accept that claim. Suddenly they can weasel themselves around the clause, using a diversionary tactic.
What would this hypothetical "this is not a religion" religion be, in the modern world?
I have written in a previous blog post about how the most dangerous cult is the one that has convinced the world that it's not a cult. And that cult would be the modern "social justice" ideology.
For all intents and purposes the modern "social justice" ideology is a religion and a cult. It might not be a theistic religion, but it's a religion nevertheless. It fulfills pretty much all the tick boxes of a non-theistic religion and then some. It is arguably and by far the fastest-growing religion in the world, by a large margin. (Some argue that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. Islam is advancing at a glacial pace compared to the "social justice" religion.)
It is also becoming the unofficial religion of one government after another. Government after government is adopting it, some of them in full (making every single tenet of the ideology official, no matter how totalitarian it may be).
And the scary thing is that this "social justice" religion is highly destructive because it's inherently authoritarian, totalitarian, fascistic, discriminatory, racist and deeply, deeply anti-constitutional. It's arguably the most racist and discriminatory religion that has ever existed in the history of humanity.
It is quickly becoming the unofficial religion of country after country. At this pace it's likely to become established in law in the United States as well, bypassing the Establishment Clause.
How? By it not being considered a "religion" at all. Nobody (outside a small circle of critics) sees it as a religion. The question doesn't even enter the conversation. Nobody is even asking whether this falls within the spirit of the First Amendment, because the religious nature of the ideology has gone completely under the radar.
This makes it incredibly dangerous and destructive. Even the Founding Fathers could not foresee this.
Comments
Post a Comment