Editor, Times-Union: The following is my fifth letter in my series of letters on the various positions that one’s government can have on religious liberty. The previous four letters were printed in the Times-Union on March 23, April 6, May 9 and July 15.
The fourth letter gave a slightly modified definition of the Libertarian principle on freedom of religion from previous versions of that definition that have appeared in the Times-Union over the years. This definition of the Libertarian principle and the brief explanation that follows in this letter and the next two should clarify for the reader what is a fundamental human right for all of us whether one resides here in the United States or throughout the rest of the world.
I will now go into a brief explanation of the Libertarian definition/principle that was given in my previous letter.
Explanation – part one 1. The phrase “inalienable right” means a natural freedom that would be illegal, immoral and impractical for the rulers or voters of a country to try to take away from you.
2. Each person whether alone or with others are free to choose whether to be Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), Jewish (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox), Muslim (Sunni, Shia), Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Shintoist Taoist, Sikhist, Jainist, Babist, Zoroastrainist, pagan, deist, agnostic, atheist or other. Which also means it is not the responsibility of the president, congress, the supreme court, bureaucratic agencies, special interest lobby groups, state legislature, city and town councils, your next door neighbor in a voting booth, foreign governments, the United Nations, Islamic jihadists, megachurch pastors, and militant atheists to decide for you.
3. The peaceful profession and practice of religion or no religion does not include the duty to wage a holy war against the infidels and heretics or those who will not willingly embrace your faith or beliefs. It also does not include the duty to engage in such acts as assault, theft, fraud, kidnapping, vandalism, arson, trespassing, obstructing traffic, disturbing the peace, rape, child molestation, terrorism, human sacrifice, mass suicide, attempting to impose their religion’s version of Taliban-like Sharia law on all, actively seeking to overthrow the government, etc. By not engaging in such acts a person is demonstrating their respect for legitimate laws and the rights of others.
Part two of my explanation will follow at a later date in the letters to the editor column.
