Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> All right, so we do back
to back now.
Right? Now, two, so three down.
>> Okay, red lights.
>> Clear your throat, Ragani.
>> Religious freedom in 5, 4...
>> Hi, I'm Professor Dennis
Falcon and welcome
to MyPoliScilab.
Today we're joined
by Rangani Punchihewa
student extraordinaire,
Professors Bryan Reece
and Victor Obasohan .
As always, we're going
to have a talk about freedom
of religion
in the United States.
Its history, background,
legal issues, political issues.
So, who wants to start us off?
Freedom of religion.
>> Well, freedom
of religion is one
of the civil liberties protected
in the First Amendment.
It basically says that anybody
in the United States can worship
whatever kind
of religion they want to
or they don't have
to worship a religion
if they don't want to.
It was, the idea was established
really right at the onset
of the development
of this country.
We were coming
out of a tradition
where many countries had
official state religions
and people were required
to participate or belong
to that religion
as an official state act,
and founding fathers wanted
to move away
from that tradition.
>> Now, it's usually Professor
Obasohan that wants
to start the controversy.
>> Yeah, that's why I jumped in.
>> I'm going
to throw a hand grenade
right now.
Isn't it true
that during the Colonial period,
and even after the Revolution,
that in some of the colonies,
either the Anglican church
or the Roman Catholic church was
actually the official religion
in states like Massachusetts
and Virginia?
The founding fathers weren't
necessarily for let's say,
you know, pluralism
in religious practices.
They just wanted the national
government to let them regulate
religion in their own states
however they chose.
>> Indeed, Professor Falcon.
Nine states had an officially
established church.
Nine of them.
A majority you know,
had an official church.
You know, so thank goodness you
know, they quickly learned their
lessons, you know,
that we ought not
to have a marriage
between religion and government
in this society.
Now, back to this tenet you know
of freedom of religion.
I think it's a myth.
>> There you go.
>> I mean, freedom of religion?
What it mean?
I mean, there are certain
practices in this country
that you cannot do on the farm
in the name of religion.
For example,
you know that this Professor
Falcon, and also you are a
member of this church.
But you are probably familiar
with this, you know,
Professor Reece,
there is a church
where they smoke marijuana
in form of communion.
It's called "Rastafarianism."
Would that be tolerated
in this country?
>> No. You can't...
>> Well, why not?
>> Well, just like freedom
of speech, you don't have
absolute freedom of religion.
There are some limits,
and if you are using a religious
practice to do something illegal
in the United States,
then you can't.
>> Okay, now,
notwithstanding human sacrifice,
volcanoes and King Kong,
Rangani, let's pull you
into the conversation.
Based on your understanding
and your experience here
in the United States,
do you believe that the concept
or principle
of religious freedom is actually
as important
to the average American student
person, that you come
into contact with?
>> It is important,
but like Professor Obasohan
said, it's not absolute freedom.
Because for example,
I believe that like the
government is imposing it
sometimes, because if you take
the dollar bill, it will say,
"In God we trust."
You know, not everybody believes
in God.
And also in the Pledge
of Alliance, you know,
"under God," you know, might,
all people might not agree
with it.
But to a certain extent, yes,
there is religious freedom,
but it's not absolute freedom.
>> And she brought
up a good example.
You guys remember a few years
ago, a father I think
up in Bakersfield, or some place
in California actually filed a
Federal lawsuit
to get the reference to,
you know, "In God"
out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
That caused a pretty big uproar
and I remember people were
pretty upset about that
in California for a while.
So what does that tell us
about you know,
the respect
for religious freedom?
There's, I get the impression
still that there are a lot
of people out there that would
like to impose a certain
religious faith or heritage
on everybody
in the United States.
>> It makes my point
that this freedom is a myth.
I mean, can you imagine a
politician for a higher,
a high profile political office,
you know, like the Presidency
of this country say,
"I do not believe in God."
Even though this person would do
quite well in office,
but you do not believe in God?
You are finished.
>> We have the two clauses
that protect religious freedom
in the United States.
We have the establishment clause
and the free exercise clause.
What's the major difference
between those two planks
of religious freedom?
>> Well, I can make
this argument.
Even though it says
"Congress shall not establish a
national religion,"
I can make the argument
that we do have, unofficially,
a national religion.
It is the Protestant faith.
Look at most
of the political actors.
Look at, I mean,
to pretend you know
that the Protestant faith is not
the unofficial religion
of this country is a myth.
I mean people will, may not vote
for a Catholic
because they think the Pope
would take over and all kinds
of stuff like that.
So, I don't see any separation
at all, you know, between them.
>> It's clear.
The Constitution says
that Congress can't establish a
national religion, you know.
Or choose any one for us,
as a country.
And you can't say
that they have.
On the other hand,
Professor Obasohan states
that informally,
the American people, culturally,
popularly, just in terms
of numbers,
tend to be more Protestant
than anything else,
which is true.
Is there any problem with that?
I mean, if that's what a
majority of people are,
then of course, we should see
that reflected in our society.
>> I don't agree with that.
Because, just because a majority
of people are
in one religion doesn't mean
that you know, everybody has
to do, be in the same religion
or you know
that should be imposed.
But I also believe
that the government, in times,
I mean without establishing a
religion, needs to you know,
for example,
if you take a child, I mean,
some religions for example,
say that medication shouldn't
be, you know, used.
If a child is in that situation,
you know, I think the government
has to intervene.
So in those cases, yes,
I believe...
>> She's bringing up one
of the most
controversial controversies.
These pop up all the time,
when you get people
from certain particular,
you know, marginalized groups,
I would argue
who have these direct
confrontations with the power
of the government,
in terms of how they can
practice their religions.
>> Yeah. Home schooling,
no medication for my kids,
because I'm going
to pray about it.
>> Pot smoking.
>> Pot smoking,
because I see God
when I smoke, you know.
>> Prostitution.
[Laughter] Yeah.
There is this thing called
santoria where you kill all
kinds of dogs and goat
and chicken you know,
and all kinds of stuff.
So all of these are in practice,
but for us
in this society,
we have decided, you know,
that some of this behavior
cannot be seen as freedom
of religion.
>> Professor Obasohan keeps
saying there's no separation,
but he's confusing two things.
One, there's what are culture?
Like, you were referring
to this earlier, Dennis.
There are the things
that our culture believes,
the people in the United States
choose to believe,
and then there are the things
that the government officially
says we have to believe.
All right?
So, the government says we have
to have open elections.
They don't say you have
to go to church.
Not one of us,
on this video today,
feels like we have to go
to church or the mosque
or the synagogue on Friday,
Saturday or Sunday this week,
because the government's going
to keep track of it.
There is no,
there is no government entity
keeping track of those of us
that belong to government,
or to religion.
Now, when you run for office,
however, you have
to get the public
to vote for you.
The government says you can run,
and you don't have to belong
to any religion,
but to get the votes, certainly,
you're going to have to appeal
to the people,
to the most popular religion
in your district.
And that tends
to be Christianity,
and in particular,
Protestant forms
of Christianity.
>> Well, you know,
everything Professor Reece said
I agree with completely.
You know, I have no problem.
But how do you explain,
now God forbid you are ever
in a legal kind of a jam,
where you appear before a judge
and jury and they say, you know,
"Do you swear to tell the truth,
nothing but the truth
so help you..."
>> God.
>> And let's assume you don't
believe in God.
Instead of God,
you said, "Hell no."
>> No, wouldn't you just.
>> Are you condemned already,
you know?
>> Just to clarify,
just to clarify, in most states,
you have the right
to ask a judge
to allow you some other
of affirmation or oath
that does not include a
religious connotation
or expression.
>> Professor Falcon,
you and I know the reality.
>> to tell the truth.
>> Can you imagine somebody,
let's assume, you know,
I believe in voodoo.
And I tell the judge, you know,
"Please, I don't want
to say the word 'God,' you know,
I want to say,
'voodoo,' instead."
I mean, am I guilty already?
Am I finished in this society?
>> All I'm going to say is
if they find you guilty,
you probably have grounds
for an appeal.
But as Professor Reece stated,
I think the idea
that we don't have an
entanglement of government
and religion,
that uses let's say directly
taxpayer money
to fund religious practices
or institutions,
although that's a controversy
right now.
I hope this got you thinking.
Open up that text book,
listen to your professor during
the lectures, ask some questions
because this is some good stuff.
It's always relevant.
Thank you for coming
to MyPoliScilab.
Now, go hit the books.