The central message of Hanukkah, as you heard in the Menorah lighting, is about religious freedom. As a religious minority for centuries in Europe and the Middle East and the subject of much persecution, Jews have been keenly aware of this issue for a long time. Throughout history, Jews have often sided with other religious and ethnic minorities who have suffered oppression. Growing up in a liberally religious Jewish family, I was well aware of the persecution of the Jews and the fragile right of religious freedom. And my parents' memory of the Holocaust during World War II only reinforced this sensitivity. As a Unitarian Universalist, I am now a member of another minority religion. Its two parent denominations, the Unitarians and the Universalists, suffered their own forms of persecutions... although to a lesser degree... through three centuries in Europe. So naturally I continue to carry the banner of religious freedom.

I think that religious freedom is a major issue today for us in America today. We may not be burned at the stake or jailed for our beliefs. We may not be discriminated against under the law. But in subtle ways much of our society has been and continues to be influenced by the assumption that this is a "Christian nation."

On Friday evening, I was wondering what it meant to be a Unitarian Universalist minister with a Jewish background as I stood on the platform with the Mayor and other politicians at the Lights On ceremony on the Taunton Green. I had been asked by Mayor Crowley a couple of weeks before to give the benediction at the Lights On Taunton ceremony. This was an honor! How could I turn down an invitation from the Mayor? Perhaps I could have gone into a long explanation about how this didn't fit my personal theology. Although the whole Lights On ceremony is meant to be ecumenical, it is not interfaith. I could have pointed out that the ceremony is, after all, a blessing of Christmas lights. And Taunton is still "Christmas City" and its population is still predominantly Christian. And being Christian ... whether Catholic or Protestant... is assumed to be the norm, with all else Jewish or some strange Other. And that I didn't want to reinforce that assumption.

Don't get me wrong. I love Christmas lights and always have. But they are undeniably associated with this Christian holiday. However, I was afraid that my argument would be seen as a feeble excuse. I didn't want to offend Mayor Crowley. So, after hesitating briefly, I accepted. In my benediction, I gave an inoffensive and very short message about this being the city of a diverse people from many cultures, races and religions. And that "we should go now in peace and work together to create justice and harmony..."

So what do you make of my dilemma? And of the whole issue of religion freedom in America? With over 80 percent of Americans considering themselves Christian, how do we to separate the religion of the majority culture from the principles? Let me say a few words about the history and background of this issue. Then I'll touch on some topics which may affect you and me personally.

The basic principle of religious freedom in America, as you may know, is set out in First Amendment of the Constitution. It states simply that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And Article Six of the Constitution forbids any religious test for the holding of a national office. These principles have been upheld over time in federal courts. And they have been extended to the state and local levels. In short, we can't have an official national or state religion. Our government cannot be a theocracy. The government must be neutral when it comes to religion. End of argument.

This principle of separation of church and state is generally accepted by most Americans, at least in theory. Most of us would feel that we (and everyone else) should be protected from government interference in religion. We probably would also agree that "we the people" should be protected from each other, the so-called tyranny of the majority. Religious minorities should be protected from people or groups who may want to impose their religious beliefs on others through law or intimidation. We all want to be free to practice religion as we see fit... as our consciences' dictate. Or to practice no religion at all if we so chose. To be different from one's neighbors is more difficult, I know, in other regions of the country, such as the Bible belt of the South. We are lucky, in many ways, to live in the more liberal Northeast.

These ideas about religious liberty are not new. They go back at least to the Age of Enlightenment, also called the Age of Reason, in Europe in the 17th Century. These ideas came to America in the next century and were refined in the U.S. Constitution as adopted in 1789. Some historians make a clear distinction between the Puritan Founders of the early settlements and the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. The Puritans were, in fact, very much in favor of their own religious liberty, but were pretty intolerant of the religious ideas of other folks. Looking back in history... way back into Biblical times... they and the Maccabees had a lot in common. Both were religious fundamentalists.

The Founding Fathers, over a century and a half later, were quite different. They were mainly Deists. Like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, they rejected conservative Christianity, including the ideas of the literal truth of the Bible, the miracles and the doctrine of the Trinity. The Founding Fathers also knew that as our country became more diverse, that religious minorities, like Jews and Moslems, Hindus and Pagans... and even non-believers... might be landing on our shores seeking freedom and better opportunity. It was essential that America be ready to receive them without imposing a religious test. Otherwise, the religious wars that waged in Europe for centuries might come here. Despite nativist opposition, the idealistic vision of the Founding Fathers has proved to be correct. "This fragile experiment of democracy," as they called it, has withstood the stress of immigration of people from all over the world. We've become accustomed to diversity.

After the tragedy World War II, the United Nations was established in order to work for a more peaceable and just world. In 1948 the U.N. adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It includes a statement about freedom of religion: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or believe, and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance." The World Council of Churches and then Vatican II supported this right in later documents. All this was major progress. As Professor James E. Wood, Jr. writes: "In the history of Christianity, as among other religions in the world, tolerance has not come easily. Tolerance toward other religions was generally deplored because it was viewed as being rooted in religious apathy and indifference."¹

From my perspective and yours no doubt, religion should be a matter of personal choice and individual conscience. it's wrong to coerce religion. In fact, I imagine that human beings have always resisted such coercion of belief... ever since we homo-sapiens arose from the apes and developed the ability to make independent moral decisions.

Despite this principle of religious freedom, America is still struggling with internal issues of religious intolerance and misunderstanding. I gave you the rather mild example of my dilemma over the Lights On ceremony. Taunton is not unique in this regard. Other communities have had legal battles over the display of crèches and other religious symbols on public property. How can this be solved fairly and equitably? Does even a large Menorah really make up for a whole town common of Christmas lights! And what about the other world religions? And how can a city or town give equal time to the humanists? Do I sound like the Grinch who would steal Christmas? Sorry, but it's just the principle.

Then there are other issues. What about barriers to the practice of religion? What about children's sports teams which schedule practice on Sunday mornings? I know sports on Sunday has created a hardship among some families here. "What?" you may think, "Now Rev. Rachel sounds like an evangelical!" Darn right in this case. Those soccer or baseball coaches might say there are too few fields and they have a problem with competing for practice time. But there is also a general disparagement of religion in among some in our society. They see all religion as being more harmful than helpful. They are too dismissive of all religion. There is something of a war between the religious fundamentalists and secular humanists (what some may call the fundamentalists of the left). Those of us who favor religious pluralism and religious freedom are stuck somewhere in the middle.

It's interesting how things have changed. For many years, major league baseball teams weren't allowed to play on Sundays at all. This was the Lord's Day to an activist group called the Sabbatarians. Massachusetts was the next to last state to repeal its Sunday blue laws against sports. (Pennsylvania was the last.) In our state, conservative Republicans denominated the legislature. They were so conservative on Sunday matters, that they "rejected a bill in 1922 to allow the playing of checkers and chess outdoors on Sunday." But public opinion changed and voters petitioned a referendum on the subject for the 1928 general election. It got on the ballot and passed overwhelmingly in most areas of the state, by a nearly two-thirds vote. It didn't hurt that a record number of Democrats turned out to vote in the 1938 Presidential election. The New York governor Al Smith, who was Catholic, lost to Herbert Hoover. But Smith did very well in the Catholic urban areas of Massachusetts.

"Well," you may say, "this argument over baseball and Sunday sports may be interesting. But what about more substantive issues, like abstinence-only sex education and how it hurts AIDS prevention and the teenage pregnancy rate? What about the teaching of creationism versus evolution in schools? What about stem cell research? Aren't these perhaps more important?" I agree they are, but I'm sure most of you are already aware of these issues through the public debates in the media. And, yes, they are great examples of how religious fundamentalists try to dictate what is moral and right for the rest of us.

One last issue which concerns me and should concern you is the growing importance of religious beliefs in the Presidential race. People's personal religious beliefs should not be a litmus test for public office. Officially they aren't. Remember, according to the Constitution, you needn't be an avowed Christian (or an avowed anything) to run for public office. Yet there seems to be a growing unofficial litmus test, more so among the Republicans than the Democrats. But candidates of both party are not exempt from a certain expectation that they be "religious." If a reporter's questions are phrased in terms like "do you believe such-and-such (say homosexuality) is a sin?" then that's theological or religious question. That's not a question about one's opinion on a public policy issue.

Did you see the Republican debates? I saw the one where a questioner asked the candidates if they believed in evolution. As I recall, everyone one of them except John McCain said "No." And he qualified his answer. The implication seems to be that if you don't tow the conservative Christian line, you aren't worthy of the Republican nomination.

Even Democrats are being asked if they believe in the power of prayer. And what is even more disturbing than the question is the cowardice of the answers. No one has stood up to say that their personal religious beliefs aren't the issue, but how they would vote on public policy. A politician may pray every day, but may not want to impose prayer in the schools. A candidate might not personally "believe" in abortion, but may vote consistently to defend a woman's right to choose. He or she might be uncomfortable with same sex marriage, but might be ready to veto a defense of marriage bill which would ban gay marriage. That is what's important!

So my friends, I see an erosion not of religion in America. More people than ever declare that they think religion is important. Some 82 percent say they are Christian, and another 9 percent belong to another organized faith. I see an erosion of the concept of religious freedom. The freedom to believe as one feels compelled to believe by reason, experience and conscience. The freedom to practice or not practice religion as one chooses.

As the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 59 years ago, states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or believe, and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance."

Whether you personally believe that these are God-given rights or just a birthright to each and every human being, may we as members of a liberal religion defend these rights of thought, conscience and religion with commitment and passion. May it be so. Amen. Blessed be.

1 James E. Wood, Jr. as quoted in the article "The International Religious Liberty Association Focused on Freedom" by Dr. John Graz, Executive Director, IRLA, in Liberty, A Magazine of Religious Freedom, March/April 2007, p. 24.

Dr. John Graz, "The International Religious Liberty Association Focused on Freedom" in Liberty; A Magazine of Religious Freedom, March/April 2007. (A bi-monthly publication of the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists.)

George M. Hamilton, "Religious Pluralism and America's Christian Nation Debate" in Liberty, September/October 2007.

Albert J. Menendez, "The Battle for Sunday Baseball." in Liberty, September/October 2007

Kevin Paulsen, "Theology in the Presidential Campaign...The Ever-Blurring Line" in Liberty, November/December 2007