Column: Free expression under fire

On Feb. 15, 2005, Representative David Sater introduced into the Missouri General Assembly a bill that would recognize the right of the majority to express their Christian faith in public. Much hilarity ensued. The left-wing regressives and the anti-religion crowd immediately erupted into hysterics on how the Holy American Christian Theocracy was coming. You'd think that the law required burning religious minorities at the stake.

Critics of the law said that it establishes Christianity as the state's official religion and offers no protection for religious minorities. They decry the tyranny of the majority. Finding this extreme, I read the law. Not only does it establish nothing, it very clearly indicates respect should be given to religious minorities. Those who have taken recourse to the phrase "tyranny of the majority," most often wish to supplant it with the tyranny of the minority.

The law simply reinforces what should already be self-evident - people have a right to free expression of religious sentiment. It also contradicts the notion that separation of church and state requires only anti-religious speech be allowed. What is required is that the institutions of religion and the institutions of government be separate. There is a reason it is called separation of church and state, and not separation of religion and state. It certainly does not require suppression of free expression.

There are those who react to any utterance of Christianity on or near a public facility as the establishment of Christianity as the official state religion. There's only one question I have for those people:

There are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Unitarians, and so on. There are roughly 50,000 different Christian churches in the United States with different interpretations. Exactly which church is being set up as the national church?

In the infamous Pledge case, filed by Michael Newdow, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge established a religious orthodoxy of monotheism as the official state religion. Let's skip past the absurdity of monotheism being a religion for a moment and point out that while there is a problem with establishing an orthodoxy of monotheism, there seems to be no problem of establishing a religious orthodoxy of gay marriage or the legitimacy of abortion. The difference in the later case is that it is a requirement with legal penalties, as opposed to saying the Pledge, which is voluntary.

The government in California has legislated that religious belief against gay marriage and abortion is nullified. The Catholic Church was required to provide "domestic partner" benefits to gays. Catholic hospitals are required to provide abortifacients despite their teaching against murder. This is a governmental attempt to force churches and religious entities to be nothing more than arms of the state and deny any legitimate disagreement.

When the government suggests, but does not mandate the undeniable Christian heritage of this nation, it does not dictate dogmas. When the government mandates behavior to override the conscience of others, it steps full-heartedly into the business of dictating religious dogmas. The idea that religious expression must be suppressed as freedom is little more than Orwellian doublespeak.

The suppression of religious viewpoints is even present at this University. SORF funding guidelines unconstitutionally restrict religious speech. You cannot say that, on one hand, students have free expression and then say pro-religious speech is disallowed. University rules also unconstitutionally restrict the formation of religious groups. SIU recently lost a federal case for the same rules this University still has.

This illustrates an interesting dynamic. The objectivists can have funded speech that decries Christianity as witchdoctory. There could be funded talks celebrating sodomy. Plays that portray young girls getting plied with alcohol and raped by older women can get funds and be celebrated as genius. The only thing too profane to dare be spoken on campus is conservative religious viewpoints. That simply must be suppressed in the name of freedom.

What separation of church and state requires is the respect of minority religions, but it is high time that the majority religion also gets its due respect, particularly for the great contributions it has had to this country.

John Bambenek is a graduate student and academic professional at the University. He needs a Facebook fan club and more Facebook friends. His column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.