Two years ago I wrote that I feared the end of religious freedom in the United States. My fears remain unabated. I am growing increasingly concerned about religious intolerance in our nation. The Bill of Rights guarantees citizens of the United States of America the right to freedoms of speech, assembly, and free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion is inextricably bound to the freedoms of speech and assembly. Religious faith cannot be adequately expressed without the freedoms to assembly together and speak. The federal government is charged with protecting these basic and essential human rights. It is becoming apparent that there is a political movement afoot with the intent on limiting religious speech and expression to the domain of private devotion. Much of this is due to the religious community’s opposition to abortion and the homosexual agenda to redefine marriage. Opposition to abortion or homosexual marriage is being defined as hate speech. Religious speech or expression that challenges the agenda of the government is being suppressed.
In a recent article in The Harvard Crimson Sandra Y. L. Korn argued that “academic freedom” should give way to “academic justice.” Research, articles, books that fail to meet the “political realities” should be suppressed. Academic justice will prohibit free speech, intellectual and religious, in favor of the perceived political realities.
Recently, in an egregious violation of the free exercise of religion, Nancy Pelosi urged the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco not to participate in the March for Marriage. She referred to the event as “venom masquerading as virtue.” This is a prime example of a national political leader demonizing legitimate religious expression. Again, when religious expression conflicts with “political realities” it is religious expression that must be suppressed.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has posted an extensive list of current threats to religious liberty. These threats portend the suppression of public expression of religious speech, devotion, and service.
Then, there is the issue of sensitivity training for those who oppose homosexuality (here and here). Sensitivity training is defined as “training intended to sensitize people to their attitudes and behaviors that may unwittingly cause offense to others, especially members of various minorities.” I am forced to wonder, since these attitudes are often an expression of religious or political beliefs, what is the difference between sensitivity training and brain washing? It has been reported that a New Jersey lawmaker has suggested that a Christian parent who seeks counseling for their child struggling with sexual identity issues may be subject to legal action including removing the child from the home.
Religious intolerance is being expressed in a multitude of ways. The Duck Dynasty patriarch, Phil Robertson, was accused of hate speech because he quoted the Bible. Religious websites are being blocked in public schools. Religious buildings are being zoned out of certain locations by local authorities. In some cases, religious buildings are being protested, in these cases often by Christians protesting the building of Islamic mosques.
With an increasingly secular media there is less understanding of religious tolerance, and even open hostility towards religious practice and belief. Too often, the secularist in the media cannot discern the distinctions between legitimate religious practice and terrorism. It should be commonly accepted that speech is protected, but violence is criminal. With the advance of the new atheism, all religious belief is superstition, all religious speech is hateful, and all religious practice is oppressive.
Our global village has been religiously diverse and pluralistic for millennia. Yes, there has been much religious violence. But in the spirit of Christian love, Christians should be leading the way in protecting religious liberty throughout the world. Christ has called us to love our enemies, to befriend our opponents. Therefore, Christians should encourage religious dialogue and support the legal protection of all religious sites. If freedom of conscience is to be protected, then anti-conversion laws must be resisted. As we seek to promote freedom of conscience and religious liberty, we must also boldly proclaim the Gospel (Romans 1:16). We must respect Caesar, but Caesar must not be allowed to suppress religious liberty; lest Caesar become god.
Rick Warren has been at the forefront on this issue. Last year he participated in a discussion on religious freedom at Georgetown University. It is lengthy, but well work watching.
