There are none blinder than those who claim to see discrimination against Christians in American politics. Himalayas of evidence to the contrary cannot dissuade them — not even this year’s presidential primaries, which have often seemed more designed to choose a parson than a president. Though they seek a secular office, the candidates spend much of their time quoting Bible verses; the Bill of Rights, with its promise of religious freedom, is scarcely mentioned. This is regrettable, but not entirely unexpected, since the incumbent was elected in part because he was ostentatiously religious. In office, he’s proved ostentatiously inept, but that’s little-noticed by people who vote for the candidate most doctrinally sound in fundamentalist Christianity.

Religious discrimination exists, certainly, but not against the Christian majority. Let a candidate for any public office in America confess to being a nonbeliever, as many Americans are, and he’s not only assured of defeat and ostracism, he’s likely to be physically assaulted.

Advertisement

And the vigilantes on his trail would sing their tired old song about how freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. It does, or course, or it means nothing at all. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, only 20 years ago, when tolerance was more fashionable:

“Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects — or even intolerance among ‘religions’ — to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.”

Advertisement

America will never hear anything like that from Justice Scalia, and Americans will be less free because of it.

Advertisement

Help to Keep Great Journalism Alive in Arkansas

Join the fight for truth and become a subscriber of the Arkansas Times. We've been battling powerful forces for 50 years through our tough, determined, and feisty journalism. With over 63,000 Facebook followers, 58,000 Twitter followers, 35,000 Arkansas blog followers, and 70,000 daily email blasts, our readers value great journalism. But we need your help to do even more. By subscribing and supporting our efforts, you'll not only have access to all of our articles, but you'll also be helping us hire more writers to expand our coverage. Together, we can continue to hold the powerful accountable and bring important stories to light. Subscribe now or donate for as little as $1 and be a part of the Arkansas Times community.

Previous article What…No Post-Game Boot Presentation? Next article A minor courtroom triumph