The Gospel Coalition

Articles you need to know about, summarized in 60 seconds (or less).

The Article: Defining Religious Liberty Down

The Source: The New York Times

The Author: Ross Douthat

The Gist: Opponents of religious freedom should be open and honest about their anti-religious motives and goals.

The Excerpt:

It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it's clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.

It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the "of course we respect religious freedom" facade.

If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don't tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that's good and decent, and that you're going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.

There, didn't that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight.


The Bottom Line: The significance of Douthat's latest column is not just what he says---though the topic is of utmost important---or how he says it---though he says it exceptionally well---but the fact that he is saying it in the New York Times. Numerous Christian publications (including this one) have documented the increasing disregard for religious liberties and lamented the push to keep religion segregated behind the walls of the church. But Douthat's column may be the first time it has been pointed out in a secular publication that the opponents of religious liberty truly are opponent of religious liberty.

We're overdue for an honest conversation about the role of religion in the public square. Too many Americans are starting to believe that religious freedom means merely the "freedom of worship." As long as such religion is practiced quietly and out of sight, they are supportive of religious belief. But if a politically incorrect Biblical belief is expressed openly they will label you a bigot and attempt to ostracize you not just from the public square but from the very polis.

Douthat has been courageous in calling them to be honest about where the stand. When they drop the pretense and launch the assaults without apology, will we have the courage to stand for religious freedom?


Comments:

bob

July 31, 2012 at 07:52 PM

Things will get worse in the end days. Ross is fighting that, and I am thankful that he is. Rightness has a place.

[...] The Gospel Coalition: 60 Second Summary: Defining Religious Liberty Down [...]

JohnM

July 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM

mel,

Don't forget that Christians were at the forefront tof the abolition movment. As for "the attitude that anything bad falling on a family meant that they were cursed by God when Christians should have known better", that apology may be owed more to fellow Christians than it is to anyone outside the church. Anyway, to tell the truth I've heared OF it but I've never really heard anyone say it. Maybe be something of a strawman.

JohnM

July 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Paul,
Well maybe, but the need is not so much to apologize for the Bakkers,Swaggerts, and Osteens etc. as it is to apologize for being less than unequivocal in drawing a distinction between their "messages" and sound doctrine. But then I think we live in a day and age when Christian's don't need to be so much in apology mode.

Stephen

July 30, 2012 at 09:15 PM

Anyone care to think that religious liberty is not something that we are entitled to? Anyone care to stop and consider Jesus' promise that we will face opposition?

mel

July 30, 2012 at 08:44 PM

Some of the things that come to my mind besides slavery but the attitude that anything bad falling on a family meant that they were cursed by God when Christians should have known better. The attitudes that caused the book In His Steps to be written or that drove Horatio Spafford and his family to move to Israel.

paul Cummings

July 30, 2012 at 06:29 PM

yes Clark...kind of what Mel said...not to mention the Jim Bakkers and Swaggerts...Westboro Baptists and Osteens.
Not that we would all say that this group is full of 'true Believers' but nevertheless they claim to represent Christ in the public eye.

mel

July 30, 2012 at 05:22 PM

"First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Miss., since its founding in 1883. According to Pastor Stan Weatherford, some church members objected so strongly to breaking that precedent, they threatened to oust him from his pastorship."

So he caved and had the wedding somewhere else.

mel

July 30, 2012 at 05:06 PM

Well I recently saw in the news where a church refused to marry a black couple because it had never been done there before and some of the members objected so the pastor opted for marrying them at a nearby "black" church.

Kind of funny don't you think that even in this day and age there would be people that ignorant and hateful in the realm of religion.

Clark

July 30, 2012 at 04:22 PM

Paul, I'm not sure what you mean by the 2nd point, can u give an example?

paul Cummings

July 30, 2012 at 03:22 PM

...I feel like this storm is just beginning. We are seeing the backlash against Christianity for 2 things...the true and honest/good Biblical things we stand for that are in opposition to the world...and 2nd.. all the Christians over the last century that did more harm than good "in the name of Jesus". The 1st is to be expected, the 2nd...we can only apologize and take our medicine.

Bobby Bugg

July 30, 2012 at 02:55 PM

When will we argue that propagation of no religion is a religion?

Lily

August 4, 2012 at 04:56 PM

They are fighting against things that might as well be secular (and are in many cases). There is a difference between wanting to destroy religious liberty and wanting to destroy ideas you think are harmful and prejudice that happen to be defended with religion. Does it bother no one that the logic in this point isn't really there? Subjugation of someone else is always professed to be the first and main point by those you say are trying to destroy religious liberty. I guess you can just ignore that though.