In November of 2014, the Mormon Church officially admitted that its founder, Joseph Smith, had forty wives. While the polygamy of Mormon leader Brigham Young had long been acknowledged, founder and Prophet Joseph Smith's polygamy was not previously admitted. Mormon polygamy has long been a controversial topic, and now it has been confirmed by Mormon Church leadership its founder was a prodigious polygamist. Learning of this admission, my civil libertarian side made me think, "So what?" If these folks want polygamous relationships, and there are no underage participants (this seems somewhat in dispute with respect to Joseph Smith), then I have no problem with it. Then I remember the California ballot initiative "Proposition 8", a direct attack on marriage equality, underwritten substantially by Mormons. Mormons have long been associated with an alternative to "traditional" marriage, interwoven into their doctrines and beliefs, yet they funded an attack upon others who are seeking acceptance of their alternative view of marriage. This gets to the heart of what I don't like about much of organized religion - it is hypocritical and coercive. There is ingrained in many "religious" people some need to force their beliefs on those of us who may not share them.
Religious freedom is a core tenant of American liberty, formalized in the Constitution. Religion is something we are all free to choose, or reject, per the guidance of our own conscience. The dictionary defines conscience as “the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual“. As American citizens, we are guaranteed the right to arrive at our own conclusions about matters such as deity, eternity, and how we conduct ourselves. Obviously our conduct, as informed by whatever we believe, needs to be within the boundaries of the laws and societal norms we must all observe, irrespective of our religious leanings.
Organized religion, as often found within America today, is at its core coercive. They use what I can only describe as psychological intimidation to attempt to get others to adopt their religious creed. The level of psychological intimidation employed ranges from low to extreme, seemingly dependent on how closely a person gravitates toward “evangelicalism”. I recently had an unsolicited conversation on an airplane with the person in the next seat. Things started with normal chit chat, but I knew the conversation was headed in an unpleasant direction when this person informed me he was part of a “Christian ministry”. I tried to direct things back to more benign topics, but he was bound and determined to “witness” or whatever it is these folks feel compelled to do. One of his tag lines was “if you died tonight, where would you be”? The implication here was that unless I chose to believe and accept his world view and theology, and made this choice pretty quickly, I would end up in eternal, fiery torment. No pressure or coercion there!
I tried to tell this person that while I respected his right to believe what he believes, I prefer to make up my own mind about such matters. As he persisted to harangue me, I said I was unwilling to subscribe to anything that rejects science as a tool, and the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old is simply an unbelievable fiction. He of course had numerous “proofs” to support a “young earth”, none of which would hold any validity to anyone with real scientific credentials. What I found most disturbing about this encounter was the utter disrespect this person showed for me as a free thinking individual, and in my view this was a direct violation of my personal freedom. He felt I was incapable of rationally arriving at my own valid conclusions, and I was being deceived by the satanic cabal of science. Thankfully the plane landed, and our exchange ended with him telling me my misplaced trust in science was simply mans’ attempt to explain the creation without a creator. Science is actually nothing of the sort. It is a logical methodology that will guide one in the rational acquisition of provable knowledge. One of science’s fundamental principles allows, even insists, you must change your mind upon the arrival of new, verifiable information. In response I told him religion is simply the attempt of some to say they know something with certainty which they have simply chosen to believe without objective proof.
Religious liberty is as much freedom from religion as it is freedom of religion. It allows us to choose our beliefs and practices, as long as no laws are broken, and no innocents are harmed. If this is a polygamous relationship with multiple partners, as long as all are consenting adults, I am personally inclined to say, “knock yourself out”. What religious freedom does not include is another person’s right to force or impose their belief system on me, or to in any way demean my status as a free and thinking individual, capable of, and Constitutionally guaranteed the right to arrive at my own conclusions.
I am very disturbed by the recent trend of state legislatures passing laws they claim to be protecting religious freedom, which more to the point are facades to allow people to use “deeply held personal beliefs” as a justification for discrimination in civil social interactions. The Republican Party has pushed such legislation as part of a national agenda in order to keep “religious conservatives” on the reservation. When religion and the religious seek to impose their beliefs against the will of others, and seek to shape and influence civil law to reflect the prejudice of their belief system, then it ceases to be a matter of religious freedom, and becomes religious tyranny, much in the same spirit as the Spanish Inquisition or the Taliban. The recent spate of legislation passed at the state level under the banner of "Religious Freedom Restoration Act” or other similar titles, is in fact not restoring any religious freedom, but is rather a highly coercive intrusion into public policy, seeking to influence civil discourse and force it to reflect the religious beliefs of a minority. The doctrine of separation of church and state, which has long served as a guideline in such matters, tells us this is a space where religion does not belong.