I Think
Jorhena Thomas May/June 2004
As a citizen of the United States, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks made me feel violated, insecure, and helpless. Ironically, some of the American government's response is also making me feel violated, insecure, and helpless. We have seen the passage of the U.S.A.
Patriot Act and establishment of the new Department of Homeland Security. I
understand that anti-terrorism measures are meant to protect the safety and freedom of the American people; however, I am worried that
the government might use these same measures to discriminate against its citizens, resulting in an effective stifling of religious liberty as we know it in the United States.
As a student of international affairs, I am taught to analyze and to think critically about events that take place in this country and in the world around me.
This article is an outgrowth of that critical thought. Much can be learned by soliciting the opinions of
others. I decided to ask some of my contemporaries a few questions relating to
issues that concern me:
QUESTION I: Not long after launching the "War on Terrorism" Congress passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which took away or suspended some of our civil rights. In response, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated, "Are we any safer as a nation? I don't know. Are we less free? You bet." What are your thoughts?
"I am torn on that issue. People have fought so hard to ensure civil rights for all Americans; I feel that it is really counterproductive to give some of them up now. On the other hand, I can sacrifice a few of my rights to save some lives. I just need to feel confident that the government is working to the highest capacity of efficiency when I sacrifice my right for the 'common good.'"
—Jazmine P., 21, not religious
"As a noncitizen I can't say too much, but a general thought to share is: this new law is making the U.S. just like the country I fled as a refugee a few years ago."
—Salah H., 27, Muslim
"Are we any safer? No, I would agree that we are not. The strength of a democracy lies in meeting challenges and protecting rights, not in sacrificing rights for security. I believe that unless the United States learns from the lessons of the past, we might soon be living in what Gore Vidal calls the 'national security state,' in which a government squashes civil liberties, reduces social programs, and focuses solely on creating a paranoid society that will acquiesce to the government's wishes, good or bad."
—Kurt W., 23, Catholic Christian
—Erin B., 21, Christian
"The Patriot Act is a logical response to a terrorist act with the magnitude of September 11. History has shown that civil rights will often be suspended in times of national emergency, or in the name of national security. I do not feel that the Patriot Act is especially dangerous. Are we any more or less safe as a nation? I would ask the question. Have we ever been safe? The ease with which the terrorists executed the September 11 plot shows an apparent lack of readiness on the part of U.S. authorities. Are we less free as a nation? I'm not sure if America has the exact freedom that the world thinks it has. Just because we are guaranteed freedoms does not mean that they are always given in every case."
—Nathaniel H., 26, not religious
"I don't feel any safer with the enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Instead, I feel violated and vulnerable. In order for our country to succeed in the war on terror, the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies must learn to work together efficiently and responsibly. If that happens, there won't exist a need to subject our population to the invasive inquisitorial measures of the government. When we allow our state to run amok in its efforts to 'protect' the people, our government becomes the leviathan that we all fear."
—Anthony M., 21, Christian
"I think the line has definitely been crossed between protection and invasion. Our state of independence has been questionable for a while, but now it is plain that our independence is pretty much subject to change with the political climate."
—JoNise C., 24, Christian
"I agree with Mr. Romero; we are less free for two reasons. First, some people's constitutionally protected rights are being abused for political reasons. Second, we are less free because we are letting fear become our primary motivation, and I believe this fear is being used as a political tool."
—Brad Q., 28, "spiritual"
"We are definitely not safer with the new regulations, because they seem to target law-abiding residents of the U.S. instead of the terrorists."
—Ciku G., 25, religious
"I agree that we are a little bit less free, though I don't believe it's a big change from before. Safer? Maybe a little. Is it worth it? I don't think so."
—Ryan W., 24, atheist
QUESTION II: Under what circumstances would it be OK for the government to limit religious expression? to support it?
"The only situation in which I see it allowable for the government to limit religious expression would be to limit speech, which directly incites violence or lawlessness."
—Kurt W.
"People should be able to believe in whatever they want, but when their actions of their beliefs (human or animal sacrifices and such) endanger or harm others, then they should be limited."
—Jazmine P.
"It is OK for government to verbally encourage citizens to worship in whatever way they choose, so long as they do not limit anyone else's constitutionally protected rights, and to pass laws that protect the general freedom to worship. In my opinion it is not right for the government to support religion through the use of public funds. I personally am wary of Bush's encouragement of 'faith-based initiatives' to support community development, as public funds are shifted directly to faith-based programs and institutions. If his encouragement was in word only, and did not involve the use of public funds, I would find no problem with it."
—Brad Q.
"It would be OK for the government to limit religious freedom if that religion interferes with the lives of other people. I think that the government should support a particular religion when it benefits the community. For example, if a Baptist church provided programs for alcoholics, then the government should support actions like this."
—Erin B.
"All religions are calling for peace and human good. The government can intervene when followers of specific religion are using their religion to achieve some goals politically or socially."
—Salah H.
"I think it would be permissible for the government to limit religious expression where public affairs are involved. Stringent efforts should be made to keep religion in either the church or the home. Although there are established references to God in areas such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, and on our currency, new references should be avoided."
—Nathaniel H.
"None. Church and state should be separate, at all times."—Anthony M.
"If it harms people (harm meaning beyond feeling offended), then it should not be allowed. The government should not support it [religion] either, although President Bush is doing just that with his 'faith initiative.'"
—Ryan W.
QUESTION III: A Muslim woman from Florida, who had no problem getting a driver's license before September 11, had her license revoked after the terrorist attacks because she refused to be rephotographed without her veil. What alternatives does the government have to restricting the liberties of those religions associated with terrorism?
"In some cases religion has been used by a few people to justify terrorist acts, designed to achieve political goals. The U.S. Constitution called for respect of all religions, and this should be enforced. Some terrorist acts are results of poor and unbalanced foreign U.S. policy, and this is what should be addressed."—Salah H.
"Post-September 11, I think the government does need to take some steps to coordinate its investigation techniques, but not at the expense of taking away peoples' constitutionally protected rights."
—Brad Q.
"They should closely note behavior trends of terrorists and become very knowledgeable about their religious/ political beliefs, especially as they relate to terrorism. Based on these and other objective observations
about terrorists, restriction of certain liberties should be considered."
—JoNise C.
"Questions of rights are suspended when national security is threatened. The Muslim woman was asserting her right to religious freedom, yet the government ruled this particular right to be unavailable in the circumstances following September 11. I don't feel that the government has any alternative to restricting the liberties of those religions associated with terrorism. The actions of the few call into question the nature of the many. Although profiling in this instance violates more than one statute of the Bill of Rights, is it not common sense to focus on the group that is perpetrating these crimes against humanity? When the stakes are this high, we can afford to leave no stone unturned. While there should be no desire to institute a witch hunt against Muslims, I feel that in this particular instance the government was justified in its request for a veilless picture."—Nathaniel H.
"The government has no right to place restrictions on people of Islamic or other faiths. There should be no alternatives to these restrictions because they should not exist at all. Just because someone practices a certain faith does not mean that they will necessarily blow up a building or be a threat to American society."—Erin B.
"On one hand, it can easily be argued that driving is a privilege. One must follow the rules and regulations of obtaining a license in order to have that license to drive. If the rules change, then one must either accept the new changes in rules or forfeit one's right to drive. Driving is not a right; it is a privilege. If, for example, she were denied the right to vote, then it would be a serious and different issue. As far as alternatives go to restricting the liberties of Islam, the sole religion thus associated with terrorism, it seems to me to be a moot question. The government has no more right to restrict religious practices that are not clearly dangerous or harmful (i.e., snake handling) than it does to endorse religious behavior."—Kurt W.
"They should not restrict their liberties because of their religion. When Christians commit crimes, they do not restrict all Christians, so why should all Muslims be restricted?'—Ciku G.
"I really can't think of other fair alternatives, because they all are discriminatory; it's racial/ethnic profiling. Every person of Muslim descent or religion is not a potential terrorist. Some are, just as some Americans are snipers, serial killers, etc. There needs to be a standard. Again, the problem isn't with the practices of unpopular or misunderstood religions; it is with immigration policies. Islam didn't run planes into the twin towers. People did, and the U.S. should have had stricter and more efficient policies for allowing them into the country."—Jazmine P.
"The alternative is to let people be a little bit more free and a little bit less safe—it depends where one's values lie. I can't understand why the woman who lost her license keeps such a hard line—in this case, I think the government was right to take away her license. There are certain things that people have to do if they want certain privileges, such as driving, and the lady refused—her choice. In the case of the lady who lost her license, she did not have her religious freedoms taken away—she chose to wear the veil and keep her religious freedoms, and not to drive."
—Ryan W.
QUESTION IV: Suppose that President Bush proposed a law that would establish a nationwide religion. How would you feel? What if he planned to establish your particular religion? Would your opinion change? Why or why not?
"Since I am not religious, President Bush could not establish my particular religion as the state religion. However, even if I were religious, I would not want this to happen. I feel that any idea of God should remain in people's private lives and be kept out of public affairs."—Nathaniel H.
"I think that the greatest thing about the United States is that all religions can come here and practice as they choose. I think that if the president tried to establish only a Christian way of life, then most people would rebel. Society would have ill feelings toward the presidency because he is taking away an inalienable right—the right to practice the religion of your choice."
—Erin B.
"Even though I was raised as a child to be 'Christian,' and even though I have a great respect for the religion, I would join with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and any concerned citizens to fight such an action."
—Brad Q.
"I would not be pleased at all. I would feel as if the God-given and constitutionally supported right to choose/freedom of worship were being taken away. How could such a law be enforced, especially since there are thousands of religions represented in this country today? I would not even encourage that anyone be mandated by law to practice my religious beliefs, primarily because they all depend on the power to choose."—JoNise C.
"We would be forcing people to accept a religion that may be wholly different from their own. And that is not what this country is about. To deprive people of their religious freedoms is to negate the virtues of our democracy."
—Anthony M.
"The whole point of the separation between church and state is to allow religious freedom. It would not matter if my religion were to be established as the national religion. I am not trying to, nor should the government, favor one religion over another."
—Ciku G.
"There should always be a separation of church and state. Even if it were my own religion I would disagree, because I do not see the advantages of having a national religion."
—Linnisa W.
"It would be contrary to what the country stands for, no matter which religion or nonreligion it was."
—Ryan W.
QUESTION V: In light of September 11, are you more willing to give up some of your religious liberties in the interest of the public good?
"Because I am not religious, I consider this question irrelevant to me; the only liberty I claim is to not be forced to adhere to any religion."
—Nathaniel H.
"I am absolutely not willing to compromise my religious beliefs for the interest of the public good. I believe that if most people abided by the Ten Commandments, then the world would be a safer place. The commandments are just a set of religious rules, but they ensure the good of all people."
—Erin B.
"Although I'm not religious, no, I'm not willing to nor should others give up religious liberties. This country was founded on the mantra of religious freedom and tolerance. Just because Islam or other religious practices may be unpopular, the government shouldn't restrict them, any more than they restrict Catholics or Jews."
—Jazmine P.
"No, I believe there can be no trade-off between rights and security. I, like any other American, am willing to pay for security and to be inconvenienced: security is a service that the government provides. However, I am not willing to pay for it with my rights."
—Kurt W.
"The liberties that have been affected by the September 11 attacks had, in my opinion, very little to do with the attacks. I feel that these restrictions are being made only for a temporary sense of security so that we will feel that at least something is being done. So that our government can say, 'Look! We are doing things for your safety!'"
—JoNise C.
"Again, religions have nothing to do with September 11. The U.S. administration must give up on their current foreign policy and try to develop a more successful one."
—Salah H.
"Having no religion, I really don't care about my religious freedoms."
—Ryan W.
It is always dangerous to overgeneralize based on surveys or feedback from individuals. However, an article like this surely gives a little window into the thinking of the age group and various religious and ethnic backgrounds these respondents represent. Like many who have voiced opinions on radio and other media following September 11, these young people generally accept the need for some restrictions in the wake of such an event. But there is a growing sense that liberties may have been traded too easily, and this group reflects that. There is a little tension between their theoretical defense of religious rights and a readiness to restrict religion in an emergency. There is also somewhat a revelation of self-interest here too. Religious liberty has to mean defending the at-times seemingly indefensible and alien belief. We have much to be thankful for in a country that remains committed to religious freedom and pluralism. However, the hypothetical question that implies that America might under stress follow the lead of some other countries and establish a form of state religion got an interesting response. It is comforting to think that a new generation might protect against that.
—Editor.
________________________
Jorhena Thomas is a law student living in Silver Spring, Maryland. She was a legal intern for religious liberty work when she put together this survey of some of her friends and fellow university students.
________________________