I’m conservatively prolife and have traditional Christian views of marriage also. But just because I think those views are right doesn’t entail that I believe they should be law. Deciding what ought to be law in a pluralistic, democratic society that welcomes immigrants from, and seeks to influence helpfully, countries all over the world, requires careful political theory…

Furthermore, America is not an officially Christian nation, but rather a Christian-majority one. So if we apply the same logic elsewhere, then Muslim-majority countries should enshrine shari’ah as their laws, since Muslims are equally convinced that shari’ah is right, and should brook no exceptions for non-Muslims…

Such authorship confirms the sense that the project of building a “Christian America” according to the values of the Religious Right, rather than building the best possible pluralist and free society, is the agenda guiding such a declaration. Others of us, however, will think that God’s will might run to greater liberty for all, greater tolerance for ambiguity and dissent, greater pluralism of belief and practice, and perhaps paradoxically therefore greater opportunity for the Gospel.

But I agree with you. The idea behind religious liberty has always been that it exists in tension with other rights and that accommodations should be made where possible.

Some years back, there was a case in a Florida neighborhood where some Santeras were stopped from sacrificing live chickens out in the street because they were violating city health and safety codes. They sued the city on the basis of the first amendment. I’m not making this up. Does anyone out there seriously think that “enshrining in law” health and safety concerns is incompatible with religious liberty?

Anyway, regardless of what bad things we might say about the M.D., and regardless of what good things John Stackhouse might do in general, his position here is completely confused. Your post is clearly argued and spot on.