All too often, government thinks it can answer that question. Each time, the faithful of every religion have to make tough choices. In the US, we take freedom of religion for granted. But given the current political climate, it’s worth looking at this again.
England’s 1559 Act of Uniformity
Long ago, it was illegal NOT to attend the Church of England. People with other beliefs risked everything to meet in secret. William Bradford wrote that the Pilgrims were “hunted and persecuted on every side.” (Of Plymouth Plantation, 1651). In 1620, they fled to the New World, and Bradford became their governor.
A brand new United States still remembered that persecution in 1787. They wrote the First Amendment to prevent it from happening again. It’s fondly known as our First Freedom. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Statue of Liberty became a symbol of freedom, especially to people in Marxist countries.
Karl Marx, father of socialism
Why those countries in particular? Socialism and communism are based on the teachings of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Marx called religion the opium of the people, but he used it to inflame rebellion. For his part, Lenin rejected faith entirely. Their views still hold sway in countries governed by classic socialism or communism.
Soviet Union, 1929
In the Soviet Union, Lenin’s anti-religious ideals became law in 1929. The edict outlawed any religious activity except for Sunday services inside church walls. Children couldn’t attend church. Parents broke the law to teach their kids about religion, even in their own homes. Those rules were still on the books in 1988. They were not removed until after the Soviet Union collapsed. (“The Soviet Union’s Religious Situation Today,” by Brad Gillespie, Christianity Today, 1988.)
Modern times
The persecution paused, but only for a time. Last year, Russia instituted a new law banning religious activity outside church walls. They said it was an anti-terrorism measure. It forbids teaching in homes, emailing, posting online: anything that might convince someone to convert. (June/July 2016, Christianity Today, Washington Times.) Recently, the government ruled the Jehovah’s Witnesses were extremists and closed their churches. (April 2017, TheBlaze.com)
Religious restrictions aren’t unique to Russia. Portions of North Africa and the Middle East only allow Islamic practices. China views Christians with suspicion. The Chinese government is mounting surveillance cameras in churches all over the country. (Reported in the May 13, 2017 issue of World Magazine.)
That could never happen in the West, right? Think again. The UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a treaty that took effect in 1990. Germany reportedly says the treaty prevents parents from taking their child to church. (A German immigrant described it in a speech in Sacramento, California this year.) The CRC says the government must act in “the best interests of the child,” so children who don’t want to go to church have a right to tell their parents, “No.” (And let’s face it, what teen wants to get up early on a Sunday?)
North America
Closer to home, the CBC/Radio Canada reports that the Children’s Aid Society removed a couple’s foster children. The reason? They refused to say the Easter Bunny is real, for religious reasons.
Even in the US, First Amendment rights have been eroding for decades. In the 1980s, a 13-year-old boy complained that his parents took him to church too much. (Three services a week was traditional at the time.) The school counsellor told the authorities, and the parents lost custody of their son while the case went to trial. A judge ruled “the best interests of the child” meant he should only go to church once a week. According to HSLDA.org, the parents submitted in order to get their son back.
Problem is, the government always acts in the best interests of the state, in my opinion. In 1559, that meant having all of England go to the same church under government control. In 1929, that meant promoting atheism to support communism in the USSR. In modern times, that means states may shroud their intentions in “the best interests of the child.” But the result is the same: restriction of religious liberty and parental rights.
California, 2017
And that brings us to California, 2017. Senate Bill 18 would create a committee to make rules in “the best interests of the child.” They want to improve kids’ health care, standard of living, safety, education, and many other facets of life. Of course we all want what’s best for our kids, right? But when the government is in charge, history says the outcome will be in the best interests of the government.
As a 3rd generation Californian, my heart breaks over the current conditions in our state. Public works are falling apart. (Case in point: Oroville Dam’s near disaster this year.) Political division is at an all-time high. (Has anyone seen the house electoral map separated by county?) And this bill (SB18)* – let me tell you, it sends shivers down my spine. You would think that the First Amendment should protect religious freedom, but what about parental rights? Should the government overrule what loving parents decide?
Please, even if you don’t live in California, pay attention to this one, because what happens in California often doesn’t stay in California. When the government believes it should meddle with families – in spite of hundreds of existing laws to protect children from abuse – history warns us to expect the worst.
Footnotes:
Note: some sources are not linked because of copyright concerns over deep linking. Feel free to enter the following searches in your web browser:
“Proposed law in Russia would ban proselytizing”: by Ken Shepherd, June 29, 2016, in The Washington Times.
“Russian government bans religious group, seizes property of hundreds of churches nationwide”: by Justin Haskins, April 22, 2017, on theblaze.com.
“Under Big Brother’s eye: The Chinese government escalates tensions with Christians by installing government cameras at churches”, by June Cheng, May 13, 2017 World Magazine article on world.wng.org.
“Couple says CAS took foster kids because they wouldn’t say the Easter bunny is real”: The story was posted on April 12, 2017 on www.cbc.ca.
“California Election Results 2016: House Live Map by District”: politico.com has a good resource.
*The Bill, SB18, is still in draft version as of this writing, so it is a moving target. The above link reflects a version that was published in April, 2017. A companion resolution, SCR 41, has been created to contain more of the specific language. From what I gather, SCR 41 specifies what the committee will be in charge of.
Recent Comments