“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
America is a land that has always cherished religious freedom.
We have never had a federal church. We have allowed many different faiths to flourish in our nation. And, as noted above, we enshrined the principle of free religious expression into the First Amendment of our Constitution.
But recently, the idea of religious liberty has run afoul of those who consider themselves the guardians of social morality. It may seem ridiculous to those who believe morals come from a higher power than social justice warriors that those very same warriors would be in charge of setting our values, but that’s the society we currently find ourselves in.
And that’s why the disturbing idea that every faith must kowtow to political correctness is now able to take in root in our country.
Since a slim majority of the Supreme Court decided that every state must recognize gay marriage, factions on the left have risen up to demand churches conform to the new law — or else.
President Obama voiced this demand — albeit in a gentle, indirect manner — when he implied in his statement on the Court’s decision that religions need to change their views to keep up with the new order. (RELATED: Obama: Ditch Religious Convictions About Same-Sex Marriage Already)
Other voices weren’t so kind.
Writing for Time magazine, Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times argued that the verdict in Obergefell v. Hodges provided the perfect impetus for eliminating tax-exempt status for churches, especially if they disagree with same-sex marriage. Oppenheimer argues that previous court rulings allow for religious groups to lose their tax-exempt status if their policies violation “fundamental national public policy.”
Oppenheimer tries to persuade his audience that it is right for these churches to be punished with taxation because of this ruling. But in fairness, he does also argue that most non-profits should lose their tax-free privilege unless they provide an essential function to the community. Which just means Media Matters, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Think Progress would be found to provide essential community services under the new rule.
Needless to say, the Time writer does not consider spiritual nourishment an essential service for any community.
But Oppenheimer looks fair in comparison with Fusion’s Felix Salmon’s fierce support for this anti-church idea. Salmon appears to be only in favor of eliminating tax exemptions for those churches with the nerve to maintain “bigoted” views on marriage.
He writes, “If your organization does not support the right of gay men and women to marry, then the government should be very clear that you’re in the wrong.”
“We have religious freedom in this country, and any religious organization is entirely free to espouse whatever crazy views it likes,” Salmon continued. “But when those views are fanatical and hurtful, they come into conflict with the views of any honorable legislator who believes in freedom and equality. And at that point, it makes perfect sense for our elected representatives to register their disapproval by abolishing the tax exemption for organizations who cling to narrow-minded and anachronistic views.”
While both Oppenheimer and Salmon manage to believe their desired policy would not jeopardize the continuation of religious freedom, the facts say otherwise. The majority of religious groups depend on the tax exemptions to stay afloat. Placing this burden on them simply for believing in the form of marriage humanity has recognized for thousands of years would cause many to shutter their doors and effectively diminish religious freedom.
If you think that these might just be the harmless ruminations of sore winners in the culture war, there is the little fact that an Obama administration official admitted in April that religious colleges could lose tax-exempt status due to opposition to gay marriage. (RELATED: Obama’s Solicitor General Admits Religious Colleges Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Same-Sex Marriage)
But even if your place of worship manages to weather this change, there’s a dangerous precedent that the state would still try to intrude upon your beliefs.
In Houston last year, the city’s mayor issued subpoenas for the sermons of every religious leader in the city to make sure they complied with a new “anti-discrimination” ordinance. Jail time was threatened if preachers failed to comply with the directive. Even though the mayor eventually backed down, her zealotry reveals that the left won’t let the First Amendment get in the way of enforcing ideological conformity among religious groups.
And there’s also the issue of what’s happening to those who decline to cater to gay weddings. On Friday, an Oregon court ruled that a small cake business must pay a now-married lesbian couple $135,000 after the owners politely declined on religious grounds the couple’s request for a wedding cake. This radical ruling is only the latest example of private individuals facing retribution for trying to live up to their values.
Yet state legislatures that want to give these individuals a chance in court will catch almighty hell for merely trying to do so. (RELATED: Indiana’s Religious ‘Anti-Gay’ Law That Wasn’t)
Then again, it makes sense that the left would have such hatred for the religious freedom acts that attempt to protect faith-based conscience.
As we celebrate the Fourth of July, it’s worth remembering why America declared its independence 239 years ago.
One of the many reasons was the Church of England’s intrusive interference into the various Christian sects that had made their home in the New World. The crown’s state church sought to impose orthodoxy and create a uniform establishment that would eventually draw in the majority of colonists. For a land where many different denominations had taken root and many came here seeking freedom to practice their own particular faith, the Church of England’s agenda was an unwelcome prospect.
The religious diversity baked into the United States at its creation is why the religious freedom clause is in the First Amendment — to prevent the state from interfering with and determining the beliefs of the faithful.
However, we have the Church of Progress seeking to impose orthodoxy among the many different faiths in this country in a way reminiscent of the Church of England’s 18th century attempt.
The purpose of religious liberty is to give citizens the ability to express their innermost thoughts and convictions without government hindrance. For many, faith is the most important part of their lives and guides the way they live and act on a daily basis.
Forcing people to change these fundamental, centuries-old beliefs on behalf of a recent cultural phenomenon is beyond petty. It is also thoroughly un-American.
If people can’t uphold their most cherished principles due to the latest progressive fashion, then what good is freedom anyway?