HOW FAR CAN RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BE RESTRICTED?

The dual relationship that a Christian has as a citizen poses some thorny questions at times. He should be free in the exercise of his religion. But how is that freedom to be defined with respect to his civic responsibilities? Where is the line to be drawn between a citizen’s civil responsibilities and his freedom of religion? Can a man be religiously free if the government imposes obligations upon him that violate his conscience?

This question came to the front in the debate on a proposed amendment to the social security act which would exempt members of the Old Order Amish and certain other established sects from paying social security taxes. The Amish believe that social security is a form of insurance and that participation in it indicates lack of faith in God’s ability and willingness to care for His people.

Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon opposed the amendment, contending that religious freedom must not be allowed to interfere with what a secular government defines as the duties of an individual citizen. A news service quoted Senator Morse as stating that duty as a citizen should take precedence over freedom of religion, and that religious freedom did not carry any right of exemption from civil responsibilities. The Crusade News Bureau of Minneapolis asked Senator Morse whether or not he had been quoted correctly, then put to him these questions (which he left unanswered) : “At what point do you draw a boundary line between a citizen’s civil responsibilities and freedom of religion which, I’m sure you will agree has but litle value if it is merely creedal and without influence on his daily conduct?” He was then asked how he could reconcile his assertion (if accurate) that “his duty as a citizen should come first” with the statement in Acts 5:29 in which Peter and the other apostles answered and said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men?’

Senator Morse said that he did not know why we should start making exemptions for people because of religious belief in civil matters. He argued “I am a great defender of freedom of religion, but if a man’s freedom of religion starts interfering with civil obligations as a citizen, his duty as a citizen should come first.”

By definition “civil” pertains to civic from military, naval or ecclesiastical, and an “obligation” is any duty imposed by law, promise or contract by social relations, etc. It has been pointed out that Catholic priests who take a vow of poverty are not taxed for the social security program. Ministers are left to decide for themselves whether or not they enter into the social security program.

How far can religious liberty be restricted? Where is the line to be drawn in what a government can compel citizens to do despite their religious beliefs? This is one of the questions that will have to be settled. Does the state have the right to interfere directly in things touching on the religious life of its citizens or subordinate the life of religious groups to its own political ends?

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen