I was thinking, hearing politicians on TV talk about preserving religious liberally and it seems to me this means forcing some folks to practice religion in indirect ways. We have always had laws for not selling alcohol on Sunday, yet now that I think about it, these laws infringe on all those who believe religious liberty includes the right not to follow any religion.
It seems to me, it would be best to allow each individual the right to choose how to live within the law, rather than forcing some to indirectly participate another to practice their religion by such simple matters as not allowing the sales of alcohol on days where there is no other reason than because some religions restrict alcohol sales.
Personally I do not really care about drinking at any time, but I think someone who whats to purchase alcohol at regular hours should be able to purchase it on any day, no matter if most think it is a special religious day.
The idea is don't force your religious practices on other, as that is religious liberty.
The very idea of religious liberty conjures up all manner of ideas - and in today's pluralistic society, it has come to mean essentially the freedom to do whatever "I" want within the bounds of law. So as the bounds of the law move, so moves the perception of what liberty is. But when that becomes enshrined in society, the term "religion" is vetted of some of its most important features. Significantly, religion provides a degree of moral restraint on its adherents. It regulates behavior, but from the standpoint of Divine mandate rather than the will of the government. This does not promote one religion over another, but is a basic recognition that people need to be restrained by some sort of law. Every religion recognizes that. Thus, any government that governs will need a philosophy by which they govern - and if it isn't religious in source, it will be humanistic.
Since not all religions have the same priorities or foundational beliefs, they will inevitably clash at certain points. The secular humanist echoes John Lennon and proceeds to call absence of conflict the highest good (this being his own religious view) and wishes to do away with religion all together as a solution to the perceived root problem. So it is even more inevitable that you will have a clash between religionists and anti-religionists. Freedom, in that context, becomes the freedom to reject everything about a religion and enshrine in law the liberty from its constraints. It ultimately contradicts itself by telling everyone they should be able to do what they want - when that's what makes religion necessary to begin with (I make that statement as though from an agnostic viewpoint). So the anarchy that religion tries to prevent is the very thing secular humanism leads to in an attempt to overturn religion.
So whence religious liberty? It doesn't have anything to do with my right or your right to buy alcohol or engage in
any practice in private - because ultimately, that is a degradation of the rule of law. Here, though, is where I think the genius of the American Founders comes in. They recognized that there is a Creator. They recognize that without acknowledging that basic fact, the foundation of any real rule of law is on shaky ground (if it is on any real ground at all). And when the Creator is seen to fundamentally endow every human with certain inalienable rights, then government is restrained to its proper function and scope of authority. When it is asserted that Congress shall make no law concerning religion, it asserts no rule of the government over the conscience of men and women to worship in the way they see fit. It does NOT, however, do away with the foundation of the law that must bind all citizens and residents of the nation. Rather, it establishes that the populace needs to be governed by God's laws for the sake of order and justice. And as a people are identified in large part by their values - and those values irretrievably bound to a religious system (formally acknowledged or not), there MUST be some religious basis for government or else anarchy will rule. That doesn't guarantee that the religion is good or right - but since nature abhors a vacuum, those that seek to do what is right only in their own eyes and seek to enshrine it in law will soon find that they will be forced into subjection under tyranny. It is inevitable.
Therefore, liberty and license cannot coexist. And the only effective moral restraint is one which appeals to the morality of man. Thus, for government to enact certain laws that limit - in some degree - such things as sexual and economic freedoms, is not an undue infringement upon liberty (religious or otherwise). It is (or the goal for it is to be) rather conducive to public order. Therein lies freedom. Not in being bound to one's own particular proclivities and whims. The United States was founded clearly upon Christian principles and so it should rule upon those principles. It was reiterated over and over again by different notables that the Republic would only last as long as men could govern themselves - and many indicated that the only way to do that was with the bible. So it was used in schools. No one was forced to convert to Christianity, but they were taught its principles.
While this is a political venue, I can't help but notice that as the supposed restraints of the Christian faith have been cast off from public life (over the last couple of generations), the tendency has been towards more violent crime and moral chaos. Mankind has become his own sort of God in doing what he wants as he defines it to be right. In rejecting God, he has replaced God.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Nature does abhor a vacuum...
That's why it's a right to believe in Christ's Resurrection, not an imperative.