Talking Religious Freedom at the Center for American Progress

I am no stranger to incendiary language. Organizations on
the left and the right alike use loaded language: words designed, not to foster
thoughtful discourse, but simply to whip the like-minded into a lather. Still,
this was one of the more incendiary paragraphs that I had read in a while:

In states and court rooms
across the country, conservative extremists have launched a new effort that
threatens to undermine hard-fought civil and human rights victories for LGBT
people, women, and others. Under the guise of religious liberty, conservatives
are organizing to impose their theological doctrines on others while carving out
broad exemptions from a wide variety of laws with which they disagree. Through
law suits, grass roots organizing,
messaging tactics and more, conservatives are attempting to roll back the
progressive clock, all while claiming that they are being victimized for their
beliefs.

This is how the Center for American Progress (CAP), a well-funded
liberal think tank, was advertising its event, “Religious Liberty for Some or
Religious Liberty for All?” It was an all progressive panel with
representatives from the ACLU, the Interfaith Alliance, NARAL Pro-Choice
America, and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Former Episcopal bishop Gene
Robinson, now a CAP senior fellow, would also make an appearance. Together,
they would inform you what was to be done to counter all this conservative
nonsense.

It’s true that religious conservatives (and some not so
conservative religious types too) have been apoplectic for a while at the
Affordable Care Act’s regulatory mandate to cover birth control and
abortifacient drugs. The promised but very limited religious exemption, with
its delayed roll-out and its reliance on a dubious financial shell game, only
added to the consternation. Equally upsetting has been the decision from the
New Mexico Supreme Court to uphold the state’s decision to fine a photographer
for politely refusing, on religious grounds, to photograph a same-sex union
ceremony. This was found to be illegal discrimination based on sexual
orientation. One state Supreme Court justice directly acknowledged the imposition
on the photographer’s deeply held beliefs, but chalked this up as the “price of
citizenship.” So religious conservatives
are pretty angry—but rightly so, as I see it.

Until now, most major liberal politicians (such as President
Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) have argued that they indeed seek
to accommodate and respect religious dissenters. While the end results have often
been disappointing, the rhetoric still indicated some general agreement with
the notion that institutions and people of faith should not be forced by the
government to go against their core convictions.

CAP, though, was clearly tossing any accommodationist
language out the window, and that’s what concerned me most. At least for this
liberal organization, the issue of religious liberty has already moved away
from being one worthy of dialogue with the other side to just a “guise” to be
exposed and counter-attacked. That’s not a good development.

The panel itself lived up to the promotion. Lip service was
given to the value of religious liberty, but exactly what the term was supposed
to mean was never spelled out. There seemed to be agreement that one could
mentally believe what one wanted and that churches could decide their own
standards for membership and maybe even be exempt from onerous zoning. But, it
was strongly implied that should one’s faith compel action outside the brain or
pew, then “liberty” did not apply. The motives of religious conservatives were
also questioned. Interfaith Alliance head Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, a man
clearly still nursing some wounds from the Southern Baptist Convention’s shift
to the right decades ago, said that some conservatives use the term “religious
liberty” but “really mean
my liberty, your slavery.” With no one to question this inflammatory
rhetoric, there was simply a nodding of heads.

Moderator Sally Steenland of CAP did “play Devil’s advocate”
and noted with some seeming sympathy the plight of the religious photographers,
bakers, and florists who of late have tried to opt out of same-sex ceremonies,
only to be fined or drug back in by authorities. The panel response went no
further than guilt by association. These small business owners were comparable
to those in the past who opposed interracial or interfaith marriages.

“No one should be humiliated at the dry cleaners,” was HRC’s
Sarah Warbelow’s rule of thumb for how the law should play out. As she
explained, the ability of two lesbians to have their wedding dress and tuxedo
cleaned should trump a religious business owner’s interest in not associating
with what is to his eyes was an immoral service. Thus, she might more fully have
said, “No one should be humiliated at the dry cleaners, except the dry cleaner.”

Overall, the attempts at reasoning were often circular. “The
Constitution trumps the Bible,” said Rev. Dr. Gaddy. That, of course, tells us
little when the Constitution itself protects the free exercise of religion. “We
all like religious freedom, but this is about discrimination,” offered Eunice
Rho of the ACLU in a pithy but vacuous summation. Nobody was there to note that
religious freedom would be hollow indeed if one could not make choices (i.e.
discriminate) based upon the content of one’s creed.

Gaddy, sounding a lot like the “price of citizenship”
Supreme Court justice in New Mexico, often returned to the theme that sacrifice
is part of living in a democracy. Would he extend that to requiring Quakers and
other pacifist believers to take up arms if drafted, or mandating the Amish to
prioritize book learning over farm work? On the other hand, would conservatives
extend their logic to a photographer who, based on the bad theology of a white
supremacist cult, refused service to a black Christian couple? These are all
real dilemmas that society has faced, and may well face anew. In short, just
how “free” will we let people be in the name of religion? That’s the real, and
difficult, question that should be the subject of thoughtful dialogue right
now.

But that thoughtful dialogue isn’t happening—not at CAP, and
not anywhere else as far as I can tell. Though I have attended several panels
at more conservative venues, and heard much decrying of the Obamacare mandates
and the Elane Photography case, I cannot remember a discussion focused on
identifying the point on the spectrum where communal standards should trump
individual religious expressions. Christians in religiously dominated
communities have sometimes cited the wishes of the many to uphold things like
nativity scenes and public prayers against the complaints of the few. How,
then, ought the faithful respond when the many cease to be on their side?

Assertions of religious freedom would be strengthened if we
could better express its limits. What response do we have to slippery slope
arguments like those claiming
religious
husbands would be able to legally beat their twelve-year-old wives? If we don’t
have a response, we should: Such scare tactics were used to defeat religious
liberty referendums in North Dakota and Kentucky.

Some Christians experience these cultural shifts as a slap
in the face; perhaps the Christian response is to turn and offer the other
cheek. Or should we continue to argue our case, like Paul the Roman citizen appealing
to Caesar? These are not easy questions to answer. If there is a discussion to
have with only Christians at the table, such issues of discernment may be the
ones for the agenda. Otherwise, when the topic is religious liberty, perhaps we
should be the ones extending a hand and inviting participants from the other
side to explain their perspectives, making sure that our own events do not fall
into the same “us” versus a faceless “them” trap evident at CAP. Having been
cursed, can we bless?

John Murdock, after a decade spent as an attorney in the DC Beltway, is now writing a book on Christian environmental stewardship from an ancestral farmhouse in Texas. He blogs at republicantreehugger.blogspot.com.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.