In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting there are already people claiming this event as justification to set aside American religious liberty. Some of this is demagoguery; some of it is a well-meaning attempt to sort out feasible options in the face of terror. Much of the latter portion proceeds from misunderstandings about the nature of religious liberty.
-
Religious liberty simply means that people are treated equally regardless of their religious beliefs. Government does not take notice of a person’s religious affiliation when applying the law to them. That’s all that religious liberty really means. A Muslim who shoots somebody faces the same treatment as a Baptist who shoots somebody. THAT’S religious liberty. And the inverse is likewise true: A Muslim who doesn’t shoot anybody faces the same treatment as a Baptist who doesn’t shoot anybody.
Evidence that someone is in a criminal conspiracy ought to be more than just his religious affiliation.
-
Your religious liberty may legally be restricted in some situations when it runs afoul of other laws, and pretty much all of us are OK with that. In American law, constitutional liberties like religious liberty get the benefit of a standard called “strict scrutiny.” This doesn’t mean that religious liberties cannot be restricted; rather, it simply means that government may only restrict religious liberties when it (a) has a compelling interest in doing so, (b) has narrowly tailored the law solely to accomplish its compelling interest, and (c) has used the least-restrictive means to accomplish its compelling interest.
For example, there are religions that kill things and offer them as sacrifices. Imagine that someone were to come to the United States from a country where they were animists and were accustomed to offering human sacrifices to appease their gods. Although that person has a legitimate religious interest in killing another person, the government has a compelling interest in preventing people from killing one another. Therefore, the government can arrest such a person for killing someone else.
For the government to outlaw all sacrifices would not pass constitutional muster. In the (best-named EVER!) Supreme Court case City of Hialeah v Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the United States Supreme Court has declared as constitutionally protected the right of adherents of Santeria to sacrifice chickens (we Southern Baptists have a role for dead chickens in our faith, too). An act outlawing all religious sacrifices would not be the least restrictive means to accomplish the government’s compelling interest to prevent homicide. It takes in too much. It could have outlawed only HUMAN sacrifices, accomplishing its goal without preventing other forms of religious worship that do not require the murder of anyone.
For the government to outlaw animism would also fail at the court. That’s not narrowly tailored (and frankly, I and quite a few constitutional lawyers get a little fuzzy on the difference between “narrowly tailored” and “least restrictive means”). Even though human sacrifice has long been a part of this particular form of animism, the court leaves open to the adherents the possibility of adapting their religious faith to American law. They may claim to be animists, hold to animist beliefs (including the belief that human sacrifice is good!), meet as animists, and teach animism. They may not, however, offer any human sacrifices. The least restrictive thing to do is to prevent the act of human sacrifice or conspiracy to commit the act of human sacrifice without restricting animist beliefs in general.
This system works really well and has stood the test of time. To argue for universal religious liberty is not to argue that anyone can be exempt from the law. Rather, it is to argue that government must restrict a person’s religious liberty only when the needs are grave and the means are circumspect.
-
Religious liberty is in many ways simply an extension of the Golden Rule. Indeed, I think it is impossible to live out the Golden Rule while trying to curtail anyone’s religious liberty.
Consider what has happened in Orlando. A terrorist has murdered 50 people and injured a like number. Why did he do so? There are two overlapping answers that are on the table so far. He declared his allegiance to ISIS, so he did it because he’s a Muslim. He apparently also chose the site because he believed that homosexual sex is sinful, so it appears that he may have done it because he is against same-sex marriage.
He is unlike me in that he is Muslim. He is like me in that he believes homosexual activity is sinful.
With regard to his moral objection against homosexuality, I hope that our nation will see the difference between murderous religious kooks like the shooter (whose name I am avoiding in order to deny him fame) and people like me who share BOTH a moral objection to sex between two men or two women AND a moral objection to shooting up nightclubs.
That’s EXACTLY what the Muslim cardiologist in the next town over is hoping. He’s hoping that our nation will see (and respect in law) the difference between murderous religious kooks like the shooter and people like him who are Muslims but who save people’s lives rather than ending them.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Treat Muslims the way you want people who oppose same-sex marriage to be treated—Differentiating between people of good faith who just disagree with one another on the one hand and people who are violent kooks on the other hand.
-
Religious liberty admittedly provides something less than 100% security. In fact to enjoy ANY liberty will provide you with something less than 100% security. He who will trade liberty for security deserves neither, you may have heard. We cannot achieve 100% safety from Islamic violence without banning Islam. But what if we ban Islam? Will you be 100% safe then? No, you will not.
People die from religious zealots in countries without religious liberty, too, you know. Look at how many people have died from religious extremism in the Middle East, the area with the least religious liberty! Outlawing ISIS hasn’t made Syria safer, now has it!? What do you think, when you pass a law against being Muslim the fall of a congressional gavel will suddenly make American Muslims something else? That they’ll all suddenly become Presbyterian in their hearts? That banning Muslim immigration will actually keep ISIS from sending people here? That people who really want to come to the United States for bad reasons will admit to the consular officers that they are Muslims when they know that prevents them from immigrating? We’ll do a great job at keeping out all of the honest Muslims who are unwilling to lie. The terrorists will all suddenly become dishonest Buddhists or Christian “converts.” Abrogate religious liberty in the United States and we’ll still be in danger in this fallen, sinful, violent world.
We’ll just be in danger without religious liberty rather than with it.
You see, there are prices to be paid on both sides of the question. Dozens of people have died because someone’s false religious views led him to commit murder. Thousands die just as dead in places that do not have religious liberty. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died that we might keep religious liberty. Do we make the sacrifices of these hundreds of thousands meaningless in order to avoid dozens of casualties from Islamic terrorists today? That seems to me like a bad trade.
Religious wars are wars. Our nation can prosecute them like any other war, discriminating between combattants and noncombatants as best as we can. We can do so without sacrificing our constitutional liberties.
Religious crimes are crimes. Our nation can investigate and punish them like we do any other crime, amassing evidence, achieving probable cause, holding people as guilty until proven innocent, and practicing our justice system. We can do so without sacrificing our constitutional liberties.
Holding to religious liberty does not prevent us from fighting a war to the fullest degree and achieving victory. It merely requires that those who fight the war promise to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That includes supporting and defending the First Amendment guarantees of religious liberty for all people, as it always has in our country.
Bart, This is not a religious liberty issue. The issue has moved to why the USA is allowing people who are not in accord with the very essence of our country’s values including religious freedom. Muslim countries by law punish and are discriminating against homosexuals. Women at best are treated as second class citizens and freedom of speech and press ends where the strict Islamic religious code is part of the nations lawful code. No religion other than Islam can be preached, discussed or even mentioned. Why would a country based on religious freedom, a country that is based on a common shared heritage and value system seem determined to bring in people who are in direct opposition to the very core beliefs of this country. Europe who has lost their Christian heritage now faces a threat from a religion that scorns their laws, values, heritage and culture. The opposition to Muslims in Europe is certainly not based on religion, it is based on national survival. Many Amercan conservative colleges and churches receive scorn and harsh critics for enforcing their moral religious beliefs and many do not receive federal support for their stance on homosexual issues. The recent shooter father is a Taliban supporter who came here but is still a Taliban supporter, why did we allow this person into our land, would this country allow a far right neo Nazi from Europe come in and support his “right” to his views, of course not. One thing for sure the terrible slaughter of homosexuals have put the liberal press in a quandary. Why do we allow anti homosexual individuals so readily into our country. This terrible event will get more coverage and commentary due to the nature of the victims. I think most Americans understand and support religious freedom but know the reality of the situation. Utah was not admitted into the Union until they outlawed multiple wife marriages, is this a violation of religious belief or was that wrong. Americans understand freedom and common sense not some abstract theory of a liberal, progressive mentality that is harming the USA and actually endangering religious freedom.
It is indeed a religious liberty issue. That people who think that they support religious liberty will pronounce the denial of religious liberty to millions of people who have done no wrong to anyone (like, as I wrote above, the leading cardiologist in my area) all while telling themselves that this “is not a religious liberty issue” is precisely the reason why this is the gravest threat to religious liberty that we have seen in my lifetime.
Bart, you are my pastor. You truly love the Lord and others and wish to put no stumbling block in the way of converts. I love and respect you and your family dearly and I understand your position on this issue. It seems that you fail to truly understand the consequences with regard to religious liberty as seen from some of your opponents views, such as my self, because you continue to say that our view is not in favor of religious liberty. This couldn’t be farther from the truth in the case of many. Islam, teaches many principals that even good, moral muslim men and women, when asked, would agree fly in the face of our principals, laws, morals and the very religion that granted our country this freedom through a band of brave men. I believe that by allowing in so many muslims, even those who are not murderous, that wish to fundamentally change the way we operate this country is foolishness if we expect to protect our freedoms long term. You can see the result of mass immigration of muslims through the changes other countries have suffered. Make no mistake, we WILL loose our freedom here is the makeup of those in this country cannot truly tolerate the political system based on Judeo-Christian values. BTW – I don’t blame them. I wish this country still embraced the Christian principals which were part of its founding. I will work to see biblical teachings embraced politically as they would Islamic views.
What I am saying is that many of us who support religious freedom, draw a line in the sand in a different place than you. Surely, even you would draw a line on this issue somewhere based on your views. If you believe that those who do not agree with you are somehow not supportive of religious freedom, you couldn’t be more incorrect (in most cases).
Which brings me to another related issue…The convention held a vote regarding the use of the confederate flag. Dr. Moore stated that the convention repudiated the use of the flag. To repudiate something in it’s very nature suggests that all those who practice that act are wrong. Many Baptists, some writing for SBC Voices, posted what seemed very uncharitable and devisive remarks regarding those who hold a different view of the flag, it’s use, and the SBC passing a resolution on such an issue. Many who did not support the religious liberty resolution were labeled as not even being a real Baptists along with other comments about their interpretation of Baptist History on this issue. Essentially, those who choose to fly the confederate flag for non-racist reasons were lumped into the Dylan Roof group by association or otherwise. Why is it then that the those same people do not in turn label all muslims, by association and because of their evil, anti-Christian, quasi-religious/political beliefs, as terrorists?
A person who flies the confederate flag must somehow be racist or less charitable as a Christian because of what the flag means to some, when muslims are not all associated with terror even though their religion seems to be the primary source of mass killings against Christians. The Koran, as understood and taught by many, condones such an act, even praises it. I do not see Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and other lesser known religions practicing such acts in the world today. When was the last Buddhist mass killing for their faith? Buddhists aren’t coming to American with the idea of fundamentally changing it to spread their religion, etc.
When I read an article on SBC Voices written by Dave Miller with the title Hallelujah! The racists are FURIOUS with us!, I could not help but notice what seemed mockery and sarcasm directed at such a serious issue. IF a resolution is going to be passed and pressure put on members of an SBC church to avoid using the Confederate flag for any reason, then I think this is something leadership should issue with grave seriousness and humility. The comments on these two issues on the SBC Voices page were troubling and were more concerning to me than someone flying the Confederate Flag for non-racial reasons or someone believing Islam will destroy the American freedoms we love. How can it be that the same people calling for racial and religious freedom/tolerance can in another breath mock their brothers and sisters and even others who they believe are being racist? How does this further the kingdom? Certainly, kindness and humility by leadership would do more to advance the kingdom than someone privately choosing not to fly the Confederate Flag.
I am concerned about what I have witnessed over these two issues on SBC Voices. Saddened. Many who do not agree with leadership are being bullied and hurt whether the SBC leadership realizes it. If we are calling for peace among others in order to spread the gospel and not to hinder it in any way, then certainly it must start in our own denomination first.
I hope you will consider that the very issues being addressed to end hurt are hurting others because some judge the motivations evidenced by what they write. Perhaps you might offer some solutions to address this in future dialog.
You have met my mother and her husband and know they are seeking the Lord. They have visited our church a number of times recently. They are not saved. They have been hurt by the church in general and are skeptical. We have chosen not to discuss this issue around them for fear it may hinder their future relationship with the Lord. I believe if they read some of these posts relating to the confederate flag for example, they would be hurt and angry. My mother’s husband is a loving man who happens to fly the confederate flag for heritage related reasons. He happens to have bi-racial grandchildren who he loves dearly. He does not do it for reasons of hatred. His family members do not feel offended.
Please understand, dialog of the application of our faith in the real world among believers is important. I think this could probably be done in a very loving and kind manner showing the outflowing of our faith. The best side of Christ’s work if you will.
We must be open to dialog amongst one another, even if we cannot understand or appreciate the opposing view. We may have judged people wrongly. I would not associate my step-father with Dylan Roof. Mr. Roof is one of a few men in our lifetime who have killed and been associated with his use of the Confederate Flag. This is rare. Just like it is rare, though becoming increasingly more common, for Muslims to wage Jihad in America. In fact, more muslims kill and discriminate against others because of their reiligion/political system than do white-supremacists. Yet, we do not view these issues in the same light or treat them the same.
The SBC considered the effect of the Resolution from the perspective of blacks. Did we also consider the consequence of wrongly associating non-racist people with racists and thus hurting them? Judging them by what others have done?
It would hurt me greatly if I thought that you felt my family was racist because we might choose to use the confederate flag in a non-racist way. It would hurt me if I thought you felt I cared less for religious freedom and wanted to oppress the muslim people because I choose to draw my line in the sand in a different place than you.
That said, the SBC has great influence and does much good. I appreciate all that the Lord has done to bless the denomination through the work of those in leadership. He is doing mighty things and I am so thankful. I streamed part of the first night pastor’s conference and was witness to some great ads showing the work of the Lord through our cooperative effort. God is amazing and we are so very privileged to share his gospel and love one another.
I pray that will be the message that others take away from SBC2016.
If you are able, please work with those in the SBC Leadership to return the dialog to Christian kindness, graciousness and civility rather than bullying.
Good evening, Tiffany, and thank you so much for joining the conversation. I didn’t know that you were reading SBC Voices! Welcome to this forum for discussion within the SBC family.
1. I honestly thought that of all of the things I have written on this subject this article was the most clear of them all in detailing ways that our country can protect itself against dangerous people and movements without having to do away with our first amendment guarantees of religious liberty. To understand better what you’re asking me about religious liberty, do you mind if I ask you to make reference to the specific points of this essay at which you disagree with me? If you would do so, I think I would be in a far better place to understand how to respond.
2. With regard to the Confederate flag, I have offered my opinion on the subject matter several years ago here. That essay still represents my view of the phenomenon of using the Confederate flag.
After the vote at the SBC on Twitter there were a lot of white supremacists (this is not an accusation—we’re talking about people who self-identify as white supremacists) giving me trouble on Twitter and giving a lot of other Southern Baptists trouble on Twitter. Dave’s remarks, I’m pretty certain, arose out of that phenomenon. I’ve got to say, the more I interact with people like that, the better I feel about the resolution. Whatever offends those people has got to have something going for it.
In my article above I acknowledged that different people use the Confederate flag for different reasons. For people like your mother and stepfather—people who are not believers—I wouldn’t have anything more to say. People display that flag for different reasons. I draw no conclusions about your opinion of or treatment of black people when I see a Confederate flag on your truck.
For myself, on the other hand, I feel constrained by Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. I have no biblical mandate to honor the Confederate flag (unlike the American flag, to which I owe allegiance as a citizen of this nation as I strive to “honor the king” Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:17). I have freedom to display it or not to display it for reasons of historical commemoration or regional pride, but I have no biblical obligation to do so (and, indeed, I know of no one arguing that any Christian is sinning by refusing to display the Confederate flag).
I know this for certain, however: I have brothers in Christ who are offended by it. What do I do when I am free biblically either to do something or not to do it but doing so offends the Christians around me for some understandable reason? I think Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 give us guidance there, and I think any believer seeking to know God’s will about this matter could only reach conclusions after having come to some understanding of how Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 relate to the question at hand.
And in both of these questions, as in all things, I have it as my ambition to have opinions and behavior that have been formed by scripture and by prayer. I could be less controversial by denying what I believe to be biblical truth on these questions, but then even though you might agree with me more, you’d have to respect me less, wouldn’t you? I know I would respect myself less, and I can’t imagine that Christ would be any happier with me, even if I were wrong, that I came to the “right” position by means of cowardice rather than conviction, would He?
So, until someone somewhere undertakes to show me a sound biblical critique of my “Biblical Case for Religious Liberty,” I pretty much have to stick with that, right? And I think I personally am going to refrain from flying the Stars and Bars on the front porch of the parsonage until someone helps me to see why Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 don’t apply in this question. What else could I do?
From your essay-
“I know of no credible argument suggesting that the flying of the Confederate Flag does not offend great numbers of black Americans. All sides would acknowledge, I think, that an enormous percentage of black Americans will indeed be offended whenever the Confederate Flag is displayed by a governmental entity in this manner. Perhaps someone would argue that they should not be offended in these circumstances, but one hardly could (and consequently nobody really does) argue that blacks could not possibly be or are not offended by such displays.”
“great numbers”…”enormous percentage”
This is the typical view promoted by the media (news, Hollywood, etc) and surely people will repeat it…because what else would they know? But is it true?
PEW Research poll 2011 and 2015
“Reaction to seeing the Confederate flag displayed” (%)
2011
Black
Positive- 10
Neither Positive nor Negative- 45
Don’t Know- 4
Negative- 41
2015 (about a month after the Charleston shooting)
Black
Positive- 6
Neither Positive nor Negative- 49
Don’t Know- 3
Negative- 42
Note that the total of those who have either a positive view or don’t know/don’t care is almost 60% in both polls.
The negative % for whites was 29 in 2011 and 27 in 2015.
Polls-
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/05/across-racial-lines-more-say-nation-needs-to-make-changes-to-achieve-racial-equality/8-4-2015_04a/
As I am forming an answer to the questions you put to me, I find that I need to understand you scriptural basis for religious liberty and our obligations to secure it for other religions. I must be missing something because I don’t know of any scriptural argument for helping other non-Judeo Christian religions secure rights to build a house of worship.
Still sorting out my thoughts on how I can best explain my concerns…
Yes, I read the SBC Voices. I don’t have enough time to always stay up on everything. I rarely have time to sit and type a comment.
I don’t know how you have ANY time to write. You are everywhere. You must explain this phenomenon to me somtime.
Tiffany, it is another step on a road that leads to a disconnect between the American social culture and the churches of the SBC. There is already a minor ripple to remove the American flag from the churches that may have them. This minor ripple will grow and there will be a resolution to remove the American flag from SBC functions and churches so as to make foreign visitors, immigrants both legal and illegal, secular progressive people who want American government and the Christian church totally separated with religion being barely tolerated certainly not promoted by the society at large. Writings on SBC blogs and certainly the ERLC certainly seem to welcome the decline of Christian religious doctrine on American culture, society and politics, the church will stand alone, strangely different and not involved with political events but supporting liberal political activity the SBC leadership favors, that will call for involvement like the acceptance of illegal aliens. The SBC will be like the Amish, true to their faith but with no worldly influence. Dr. Moore once opined that he thought it was a positive sign that candidates for political office felt no need to seek the favor of religious organizations as they were only doing it for appearances, such as all Democrat high level candidates who make the black church circuit to garner votes. The concept of religious freedom is an American experiment and was one of the cornerstone of our founding and is found in our founding documents. Does anyone serious believe Christians are mandated to financially and morally help a religion that denies Christ , by biblical teaching?. The Bible basically says to stay away from the pagan, non believers not mount a defense for their existence, This is “American” religious tenet not a Biblical imperative. So the SBC is moving to get the SBC out of American politics but promote religious freedom concept that comes from American political doctrine. The ERLC rejoices in the death of the Moral Majority political involvement but is getting back into the political arena championing their interpretation of what is the “right” thing to do. Do not agree with the SBC leadership and you might have lost your Christian values. God blesses and saves individuals not nations but a nation of Christian believers who are the shinning city on the hill certainly is a worldly desirable condition. To me God gave us many gifts and certainly one is common sense.
Bart: I very much agree.
I have read this thought-provoking post many times. Important topics… may I ask a few questions?
First, what I think you are saying is that if we don’t treat Muslims equally to any other religious people, we will curtail or risk curtailing everyone’s religious liberty….? Not disagreeing, just checking. For the record, I think equal protection (process) and religious liberty are very different.
Second, what Orlando-related proposals have you heard that would set aside American religious liberty? Is it the right of Muslims to free exercise of religion, or to equal protection, or both? Or is it Christians’ religious liberty? An argument I’m hearing on the latter is this: “Orlando is a hate crime, part & parcel of hatred against LBGT people. That hatred comes from religion; for example, Christian ideas of sin & arguments to discriminate. All those religious-based ideas must be squelched.” False equivalence among religions concerns me just as it does you. Rather than targeting a particular religion, however, it portrays “religion” as the source of bad ideas. For example, the inimitable ladies of The View explained this yesterday, concluding that religious ideas should be private, at home, and out of “politics” for sure. Equal treatment of Islam & Christianity, right? Yet they want to curtail both free exercise & free expression. (Incidental lesson: Don’t leave TV on in the daytime! Especially not The View!)
Last, I wonder if there is such thing as equal religious liberty? Equal outcome? If any major (non-“kook”) tenets of a religion conflict with a country’s well-established laws, that religion’s devout followers may enjoy less free exercise than other religions’ followers, even after applying equal protection under law. Looking at a religion’s major beliefs – Pew Research has a good survey – helps anticipate such conflicts (e.g., blasphemy laws v. free speech). So does watching other countries’ experiences.
Bart, The Confederate Flag Resolution to me seems like a solution to a problem that needed no solution. Was the Confederate Flag an integral part of any legitimate church affiliated group? I grew up in the South in the 50’s and 60’s time line. I do not recall ever seeing the Confederate Flag given any respect, credence or honor in any official or unofficial church setting. The confederate flag issue to me was like the “Jersey Shore” pride or New Yorkers pride in their New Yorkness or people in Texas bragging about Texas, Is the lone star flag racist? or anti Mexican. Were some people in the south that just loved the confederate flag racist, of course but not all people in the South in their heart and did not think of the flag a offensive to others, they thought they were rebels like Johnny Yuma on TV or the Gray Ghost on TV.. Do you think the Ole Miss Colonel mascot was purposely hateful? but as time and hearts changed it did offend many black students at Ole Miss so it is time for a change on an officially sanctioned symbol. The SBC and certain people are patting themselves on the back for taking a stand that in 1940 or 1950 would take courage but how is also like banning the Nazi flag. You stated correctly as Christians as individuals if something offends or hurts someone as individuals your Christian belief should guide you. Many are offended by the American Flag in the southwest and the Christian Flag or any Christian symbol offends many. Crosses seem to be offensive to many in secular America. Education from the secular and from the pulpit are the answer to this problem not an entity banning a symbol. No harm, no foul resolution. Go on record against child abuse and killing puppies with a resolution. Go on record liking apple pie.