Religious Freedom: Under Attack or Misunderstood?

Since June, when the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, assertions that religious freedom is "under attack" in the United States have gained prominence.

Some of those fearful that religious liberty is being compromised held up the court's decision as an example and blamed, in part, "a culture of political correctness."

HDS Communications reached out to Dudley Rose, associate dean for ministry studies, for explanations and insight that go beyond the rhetoric of the issue.

HDS: Christian voices seem to be leading the calls that religious liberty in America is under attack. Why do they feel their religious freedom is being jeopardized?

DR: It's probably important to make some distinctions. The generally accepted meaning of religious freedom is the freedom to practice one's faith openly and freely. In many parts of the world today, it is unlawful and dangerous to practice one faith or another.

A former student at HDS recalled being a grade-schooler in the former Soviet Union when all religion was officially forbidden, and religion was never taught in the schools. Then, the Soviet Union fell, and the next year religion was required in the schools—that is, Russian Orthodox Christianity was required.

In both scenarios, religious freedom could be said to be compromised. In the former, all religious expression was prohibited. In the latter, a particular tradition was privileged. It seems clear that religious expression is prohibited in neither of those ways in the United States.

Since there remain many countries in the world where both kinds of proscription are official policy and are harmful and oppressive to so many people, it seems to me that saying that religious freedom is under attack in the United States is quite misleading and disingenuous.

Last fall I participated in an international conference at the Romanian Parliament on the topic of religious freedom. Many there could speak poignantly about the devastating effects of the lack religious liberty.

Ironically, one could argue that the perception of loss of religious freedom in the United States has to do with the fading hegemony of Christianity. Longingly claiming that the United States was established as a Christian nation, which plays loosely with the truth to begin with, actually harkens to an era of less religious freedom when Christianity and the state were presumably of one accord. (Again, the supporting facts for such an era are questionable.) Losing this pride of place can certainly feel like an attack.

Nonetheless, prohibiting discrimination against those whose religious views one finds abhorrent, however unpleasant, doesn't in my mind constitute an attack on religious freedom. I should note, though, that it has hardly been unheard of to invoke religious freedom to clothe prejudice in pious garb.

HDS: How will the view that religious freedom is under attack impact the presidential race? Will the belief serve to embolden conservative groups or force politicians to respond?

DR: I'm not a political prognosticator, so I don't really know how this view will play out in the current election cycle. But, in the last one, people like senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch, whose conservative credentials are pretty good, faced tough primary opponents from the right. Though the view that religious freedom is under attack is but part of what has emboldened ultra-conservatives to this point, I would expect it to continue to be part of the equation.

HDS: How should church/religious leaders respond to those who feel religious freedom is under attack?

DR: This is a really interesting question. For those religious communities for whom religious freedom, in the sense I prefer to use it, is important, there seems to be a real need to speak up for our brothers and sisters who adhere to theological commitments or religious traditions other than our own. This doesn't necessarily imply a weak religious commitment.

Krister Stendahl, the former HDS Dean and New Testament professor, was fond of saying that those of us who were Christians should learn to sing our song to Jesus without calling other people dirty names. That may get to be more than a little difficult when we're talking about hot-button theological disagreements, but he was basically right, I think.

HDS: What role should institutes of higher learning play in the religious liberty debate?

DR: First and foremost, I think institutions of higher learning should be advocates for resisting the incorrect use of the terminology. We have a responsibility to keep discourse clear and honest. If we are to have a discussion about the degree in the United States we must tolerate the presence of or serve those whose beliefs we find abhorrent, let's at least not mischaracterize what the term religious freedom has traditionally meant.

HDS: What do you see happening with the religious freedom debate in the next 10 years? Is there a way to a resolution or a compromise?

DR: At this point so many issues in the United States have become so politicized and polarized that it's hard to know how it will all be resolved.

Ronald Heifetz, founding director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard Kennedy School, gives us pertinent insights in these matters. He notes that in the face of significant change we tend to want easy answers to restore our feelings of equanimity. But then he goes on to argue persuasively that in the face of significant changes there are neither easy solutions nor the likelihood of return to a former happy reality—whether that reality ever existed or not. We often can't have what we want, and whatever we get, if it is to be any good, will require hard and discomfiting work.

From that perspective, any progress in the next 10 years on the matters that divide us will require continuing to face differences that are difficult to swallow and that the best ways of addressing are hardly ever simple. It will require toning down rhetoric meant to incite fear, division, or anger, and engaging in honest discourse.

 –by Michael Naughton