The purpose of this post is to highlight two closely related changes, which were very deliberate on the part of the Framers. First, the earlier text included a guarantee that "the rights of Conscience shall not be infringed." This has been struck out in the current version. Second, the earlier text guaranteed that "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." This, too has been struck out in the final text. The Bill of Rights has intentionally been purged of any guarantee of freedom of conscience.
It isn't that the Framers didn't value freedom of conscience. They did. They worried, however, about making freedom of conscience a "right". This potentially opened the door to all kinds of abuses. Anyone who wanted to avoid a civic duty or to engage in disruptive behavior could potentially claim the protection of the Constitution under the conscience clause. Furthermore, the Framers wanted to leave the state's options open in case of a severe military threat to the nation. They assumed that allowances would generally be made for conscientious objectors, but felt that indulgence of such persons should not be allowed to imperil the survival of the republic. Congressional delegate Egbert Benson stated this view in no uncertain terms: "No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of government."
What this discussion highlights, I think, is that we should not naively assume that America is a paradise of unbounded religious freedom. Freedom of religion in America has its limits, and these limits may even be necessary for civil order. In a nation of conflicting consciences, conscience must occasionally be weighed against more pressing concerns-- or so thought the Framers of the US Bill of Rights.
What do you think? Is freedom of conscience a natural right? Should that freedom be limited by the federal government? Where do we draw the line between legitimate limitation and unlawful infringement? Join the discussion in the comments below!
2 comments:
I’ll have to think about some of these questions. Just an immediate thought is that no one has a *right* to do anything that would cause harm (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual) to any other person. That’s where you have to draw the line. Any other action or speech is okay, i.e., is *right*.
Bizarre example: I want to walk around town completely nude and have sexual intercourse with any consenting adult anywhere we wish to have it. It’s my right to freely to do whatever I please as long as what I do doesn’t harm anyone, and this clearly doesn’t cause any harm to any person. “Oh, really?” someone questions disagreeably. “It certainly is harmful because it would lead to the corruption of the moral fabric of our orderly and safe society and would eventually destroy it.” And so the debates would rage on and on. In essence, just like one man’s trash is another man treasure, the issue about a lot of *rights* will forever reside in the province of subjective predilections.
lol! I think you're right that this issue is forever doomed to subjectivity. However, your example wouldn't really apply to the issue of freedom of conscience unless you felt morally or religiously obligated to go around town having consensual sex in public. In that case, it would be a violation of your freedom of conscience to prohibit you from doing so. Fortunately, this situation doesn't arise very often.
Personally, I'd rather draw the line at measurable, or even physical violations of person, property, or liberty. I'd only want to include emotional harm if it demonstrably causes some kind of diagnosable psychological trauma. The problem with including emotional, mental, and spiritual harm is that they're so vague, and some people are so sensitive that virtually everything they see in the public sphere feels "harmful". But then, I'm a bit of a libertarian when it comes to rights issues.
Post a Comment