May I still be religious, Mr. Bogaert? #religiousfreedom

This week, for the umpteenth time in a row in a few weeks, there was an all-out attack on religious people. This time, surprisingly enough, it was Straffe Hendrik from the CD&V who launched the proposal that people belonging to a religion with a market share of more than five percent may no longer wear conspicuous religious symbols in the political sphere:

Therefore I decided to write a letter to Mr. Bogaert:

Dear Mr. Bogaert,

Your statement greatly surprised me this week, especially because it doesn't come from a bitter Vlaams Belang fan, but from a representative of a party whose primary predicate is the word  Christian used. Christian, after all, means "following the example of Christ." Of course, one can interpret that in many ways. Personally, I feel particularly drawn to the forgiving Christ who said, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." You, apparently, are more inspired by the Christ who, in a fit of rage, drives the money changers and merchants out of the temple.

I have a few questions and comments regarding your statement. One could conclude that you are actually, in a very subtle way, primarily targeting Islamic headscarves, but that due to the highly subjective interpretation of our country's anti-racism laws by the UNIA and their 'bobo's', you have devised a very cumbersome formula involving market shares and conspicuous symbols in public spaces.

Faith is part of someone's personality

Apart from that observation, I can only state that your proposition is naturally directed against religious people in general. A faith, whether or not practiced in an organized religion, is something very personal. Together with you, this is currently a proposition that is widely proclaimed by representatives of Open VLD who then interpret it as  personal in this context means that it  merely personal may be and (completely) must be excluded from the public space.

However, I can confirm to you that a personal faith means that faith is fully part of a person's being. The two are indistinguishable. Of course, a person can change, a faith as well as their hairstyle, but still they are  personal characteristics.

When I briefly describe myself, I always say 'father, husband, entrepreneur, and Mormon'. In my opinion, these four words are minimally necessary to describe my person. My faith certainly belongs there. Take that away from that description and it is incorrect.

I can only tell you that you – perhaps unintentionally – have touched many people  personal have touched. I even dare to say  in the deepest part of their existence. Hasn't our enlightened society been created precisely to protect the individual from government interference with their person?

Separation of church and state

Therefore, I find that you, and others on behalf of the government, have recently been discarding the values of the Enlightenment, while you believe you are precisely defending them. Because the Enlightenment has, of course, brought about the separation of church and state.

This separation, however, means that the church may no longer interfere with the state, but the reverse is also true. Although I believe this is not an absolute given. Of course, a government has the right to enact laws that impose certain restrictions on religion. No one can accept that religion would be invoked as a pretext for crimes. However, the introduction of these restrictions by a government regarding religion must always be implemented and considered very carefully, whereby the freedom of religionmust always be interpreted very broadly with regard to the individual.

Conversely, a religion may indeed take positions on social issues. I personally find it particularly regrettable that religions in our country cannot express their opinions in an organized manner on social issues that intersect with what their members believe in.

But there too, the tone fueled by actions like yours has hardened nowadays. For example, if I participate in an open discussion about euthanasia, I am a fully-fledged discussion partner, even if I defend the 'no' camp. However, this only applies until I explain that I do so because of my belief in God's commandment to respect all life.

Suddenly I am no longer a valid discussion partner. I have then used an irrational argument, which usually completely disqualifies me from further participation in the conversation. I have often wondered whether this stems from laziness or fear.

To summarize in this regard: we live in an enlightened democracy that gives the individual the opportunity to practice their faith and to align their democratic choices accordingly, while also being allowed to practice their faith in expansive freedom from the state.

Danger of extremism

I even think that if the state increasingly pushes believers into a corner, it's only normal that they react. Hopefully in a democratic way. In that sense, it doesn't surprise me that Islamic political parties are emerging.

What will you do, however, if these are democratically elected and suddenly display conspicuous religious symbols in the parliamentary chamber? Arrest for rebellion? Is that perhaps why your party, entirely foresightful, agreed with Rajoy in Spain?

Currently, I regret one thing in that regard: there is no party I can wholeheartedly vote for right now. Precisely because I, as a believer, am gradually becoming a pariah, there is no party that still seriously advocates for Christian viewpoints. Not even your CD&V anymore, Mr. Bogaert.

Religious freedom needs more space

Another Enlightened principle is also that the freedom of the individual is maximal up to the point where it restricts the freedom of another. This argument is also often used by those who want to restrict the freedom of the believer, as you now also propose. Your assertion is specifically that the freedom of other non-believers is restricted by the use of (conspicuous) religious symbols.

In this entire discussion, one could even go so far as to restrict missionary work – the door-to-door peddling of a faith. But that merely a non-obtrusive personal use of a symbol would restrict a freedom, seems to me not defensible?

On Twitter, there are many who defend you with arguments like 'I don't want faith rammed down my throat,' and this statement is perfectly acceptable to me. But is the use of a religious symbol ramming a religion down someone's throat? Then please also simultaneously make a law that, for example, prohibits billboards (perhaps only for brands with a market share greater than 5%?). I also don't necessarily want to have yet another Nespresso coffee 'rammed down my throat' when I'm on the road.

While we're at it, Mr. Bogaert, could you please also make a law that prohibits men from wearing their pants so low that I can read the brand of their underwear, just below where their butt crack is displayed? That image is also unwillingly shoved down my throat.

Just to say: transfer your idea to other matters and it suddenly becomes a caricature. Why is it not so when it comes to faith? Simply because we are a minority? The believer as a pariah in this society? He may still exist, but just like the leper in biblical times, he must use a rattle (oh no, can't, too conspicuous) when he wants to go through public space so that others can turn their eyes away.

Maximum freedom of the individual

Perhaps you now feel attacked and have the feeling that I am accusing you of things that were not your intention, but it is precisely such behavior that your proposal encourages. Along with proposals that religion no longer belongs in schools (not even as a free choice, because no young person is forced to accept it by school authorities, are they?) Or that religious services should disappear from the screen (in a personal capacity: I am defending the right of people of other faiths here, because as a Mormon I believe that a sacrament service is primarily aaspect of coming together as believers).

There is clearly a tone set that increasingly wants to restrict the freedom of religious people like myself. That tone is that faith is a totally private matter and yes, that is true, but not the interpretation that it should therefore no longer form any visible element in our society. Love is also private, the state should not interfere with that, but the state also does not forbid a couple in love from walking hand in hand on the street and thus giving public expression to their love.

Other expressions of love are indeed banned from public spaces, because these do indeed restrict the freedom of others. I deliberately make this comparison to indicate that also in other issues it is not black/white to ban all expressions in public spaces. In that sense, I can accept that, for example, religious services or prayer services are not held on the street. But that at the same time one would prevent me as an individual from sitting on a bench in a park, folding my hands, and thanking God in prayer for thebeautiful nature and the policymakers who made it possible to enjoy it on that bench, I find that more than one bridge too far.

I wonder, by the way, where the 5% comes from. Is it linked to the same five percent of the electoral threshold? Is everything above five percent threatening? By the way, how do you intend to measure this? Which Venn diagrams in the colorful world of religions will you use? Are you talking about *the* Islam, *the* Christianity, *the* Jews, etc.? Or do you look deeper into Sunnis and Shias, Protestants and Catholics? Or even deeper into Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics? Is there still a group that reaches five percent? Perhaps your proposalcompletely without substance, Mr. Bogaert.

In short, I advocate for the Enlightenment as it was intended by the philosophers who laid its foundation. Freedom of the individual must be interpreted maximally with regard to the state and public space. Religious freedom is more than just tolerating a belief in someone's head and within four walls.

With Christian greetings,