Tag: religious liberty

Posted on

Can We Talk? Religious Liberty, part three

Janie and Charlotte, college friends who grew up to occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum, continue their quest to make public discourse less ugly and stupid:

In our last exciting installment, we went back and forth on some of the specific cases that brought this issue to everyone’s mind.  Charlotte ended with a question that gets to the heart of the issue–

charlotteCharlotte

OK Janie, now I have a question for you: Why is it that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is only behavior and not part of the innate essence of some human beings? Why can’t they allow room for other people to be who they are and do what they do and live their lives in peace?

Janie

That’s two questions, and though they’re related, the first is theological and the second political/social.  The first takes us deeper into the reasons conservative Christians have for rejecting same-sex marriage (for example) while the second brings us back to the original issue of religious freedom.  The first requires we have certain inward convictions but the second requires only a modicum of good will and mutual respect.

So, in regard to your first question, I’m not aware that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is “only behavior”—though I guess “some” people will believe anything! I can only speak with authority about me, and my own thought is that of course homosexual behavior stems from the innate essence of certain humans beings, since people generally act out of what we might call their essences.  Out of the heart the mouth speaks, Jesus said, and the person acts.

But that’s exactly the problem.  My own “innate essence,” if unredeemed by the blood of Christ, is sin.  You may think I say this because I’m a Calvinist (total depravity, and all that), but I knew it long before I could put a label on it.  “There is none righteous; no not one,” and that includes me.  I’m not a homosexual, but I’m a casual liar and a subtle manipulator, and I have to keep a chain on these and other manifestations of me as I fight against them.

I understand that many readers will be shocked at the idea of homosexual practice in the same category as lying and manipulating (and a host of other sins).  Well, I wouldn’t if I had a choice, but I believe God puts them there, and so must I.  That doesn’t mean that LGBT people can’t be redeemed; of course they can.  But I do believe they need to accept that their sexual desires are part of the sin nature Christ longs to redeem, rather than a special gift that should be celebrated, any more than idolatry, adultery, stealing, greed, intemperance, blasphemy and cheating should be celebrated.  “And such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11).  Such, in fact, were all of us, but we may be “washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

I come to these conclusions not because I hate gays or don’t know anyone who’s gay, or despise anyone who’s different, but because the Bible is not squishy about this.  I’ve read rationalizations to the contrary, and they strike me as just that: rationalization and wishful thinking.  I know Christians who struggle against same-sex attraction, and for them the fight is worth the prize.  “To live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

As for Christians who are also practicing gays and lesbians, they will answer to God, not me.  I can only tell them the truth to the best of my ability and knowledge.

Beyond that (touching on your second question), of course they should be allowed to live their lives in peace.  Shouldn’t I be allowed the same courtesy?  What about Baronelle Stutzman?  Ruth Neely?  Dr. Eric Walsh?

I could go on…

Charlotte

So let me get this straight: you do accept that homosexuality can be part of the innate essence/ being of some people but you believe when these people behave according to that nature (especially sexually) and “practice” homosexuality, then they are living in their “sin nature.”

Is that fair?

We agree that you and I are not trying to change each other’s minds in this conversation; rather we are trying to understand each other. So I’ll just respond with a part of my own journey from biblical fundamentalism into progressive Christianity. And no – this is not “justification and wishful thinking;” this is sound theology held by countless Christians.

I would say that indeed the Bible is “squishy” about homosexuality. The few texts people regularly quote can be interpreted in a variety of ways, especially given the completely different cultural context of ancient Israel and the Roman Empire. Applying expectations from the First Century to the very different context of the Twenty-first Century is not neat or simple. You don’t accept the Bible’s assumptions on women’s submission and slaves’ subservience, I will guess.

As Christians, for us the life of the Christ is the key to explain, amplify, demonstrate, interpret any of the other biblical texts. For me, Jesus’ example of welcoming and including those who were judged by the religious people of their own day gives me all the motivation I need to welcome wholeheartedly. Jesus’ example of chastising the religious leaders who drew bright lines and excluded some people from the fullness of God’s grace gives me pause as a religious leader myself. As I have said before, if God is my judge then I would rather be judged for including than judged for excluding.

When I stand with couples as their minister for their wedding vows, I always cite the love passage from First Corinthians 13: Love is patient, kind. It is not arrogant, rude, irritable or resentful. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Whenever any couple makes their commitment to live in this kind of love, then I boldly say God-Who-is-Love is honored. Whenever any couple keeps their vows “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health until death do us part…” then I say God-Who-is-Faithful is honored.

Janieprofile2

My position is also “sound theology held by countless Christians,” not mindless bigotry as is sometimes portrayed (not by you!).  It’s not based on a few texts, but on the entire sweep of biblical history and what we can discern about God’s purpose and design from within scripture and outside of it.  Such as

  • The biological fact that the sexes were literally made for each other; confirmed by scripture (“This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh . . .”);
  • The creation mandate to “be fruitful and multiply,” which could have an additional spiritual meaning but in the context clearly means making babies;
  • The lack of any favorable or remotely positive mention of homosexuality in scripture;
  • Jesus’ own definition of marriage as between a man and a woman;
  • God’s clear and strict limits on sexual behavior, which most heteros have a problem with.

Charlotte

My progressive Christian friends and my liberal secular friends see a lot of “mindless bigotry” on the Right. Unfortunately that is the public face of Christianity for a lot of non-Christians these days. One of the reasons I’m glad you and I are having this conversation (out of the several reasons I am glad) is that I would like more non-religious people to hear the rationale of a kind-hearted, thoughtful Christian like you. Most of them won’t agree with your theological argument (I don’t even agree with it) but your thought process and conclusions are anything but “mindless.” Your humility and compassion shine through.

Progressive Christian theology also considers “the entire sweep of biblical history and what we can discern about God’s purpose and design…” So look how we begin with similar intent and end up in such different places! I keep saying First Amendment = Messy. This reminds me that our sincere differences also demonstrate that biblical interpretation is messy.

Janie

I agree that Christ is the key to interpreting all other biblical texts, so we need to pay close attention to what he said and did.  He invited all sinners to come to him, but drew one bright line, and that was himself: “No one comes to the Father but by me.”  He upheld the Law—“I have not come to abolish it but to fulfill it”—lived a life of perfect obedience and died with all my sins on his head.  That’s how seriously God takes sin: someone has to pay for it.  One sinless man paid so that I don’t have to.  I still sin, but am obliged to struggle against my “innate essence,” my natural bent toward selfishness and dishonesty.  As a new creature in Christ I can’t cling to my old ways, and can’t encourage others to remain in what I see as sin.

The God-who-is-love demands that we love him first and best—not because he’s a self-centered tyrant but because he’s the source of everything good, and by loving him we find our best and truest selves.  If I were talking to an unbeliever who is gay, sexuality wouldn’t even be part of the conversation at first, because it’s not the real problem.  The real problem, as it is with all of us, is loving something more than God, and putting our own thoughts, desires, and ambitions in place of God, as it has been since the Fall.

A brief point about being judged: if, you say, God is your judge then you would rather be judged for including than for excluding.  Okay, but it seems to me this is not a matter of if but when.  God will judge everyone, including me and you.  If we are “in Christ,” i.e., standing under Christ’s imputed righteousness, we will be judged righteous for his sake, not for anything we did or didn’t do.

Charlotte

So we will agree to disagree on the theological and biblical arguments here. And I will say (as you suggested in our last conversation): “Okay Janie, times are changing—hope you catch up someday!”  🙂

Janie

To which I would say, if I had the presence of mind for a quick comeback, “Yeah, well, in my book, eternity trumps time.”  🙂

Charlotte

Back to our conversation about religious freedom. The examples you offer remind us how very complex it is to apply Constitutional freedoms fairly. (First Amendment = Messy.) I respect each of the people who have found themselves mired in this current confusion as we figure out how to respect their rights at the same time we respect the rights of those who disagree. I am sorry for this challenging time. I believe we will get through this and be stronger and wiser and more compassionate on the other side.

Janie

It’s a real issue, and will only be solved by accepting each other in good faith. Regarding same-sex marriage, to put it bluntly: you won.  But some factions seem unwilling to rest until everybody agrees, or keeps their disagreement entirely under wraps.  When schools and colleges are threatened if they continue to teach their dissenting views (as recently happened in California), we are approaching something like thought control. Will you at least concede that Ted Cruz has a point, even if you don’t agree with his prescriptions?  Do you understand why I’m worried about this?

Charlotte

No, I don’t concede that Ted Cruz has a point. I still argue that he (and you) are focused on one side of the issue while the Courts are trying to balance all sides in as fair a way as possible in all this messiness. One of our commenters on one of our recent conversations noted that single individuals choosing to discriminate because of a religious belief is one thing while entire communities of people refusing services to another entire population of people is something else entirely. She said: “The fact is, the past is riddled with the consequences of communities having the right to do just this…” That’s why our Court system is so important – balancing the rights of some against the rights of others.

Throughout American history, our Courts have bent over backwards to try to accommodate the sincere religious perspective in the application of our civil laws: Jehovah’s Witness Americans refusing oaths or the pledge of allegiance; pro-life Americans opting out of abortion procedures; Muslim Americans and the length of their beards or the wearing of their hijabs; Native American understandings of the sacred (definitely a mixed bag of rulings here). Anyway, I could go on… Conscientiously objecting and opting out is a religious liberty that has been protected again and again by our Courts. However, the practice of discriminating against other people has been struck down repeatedly by those same Courts.

I wrote an open “Letter to My Christian Friends who are Anxious about Your Religious Liberty” some time ago. It’s my best argument for trying to see and respect all sides of this important issue. And yes – it would be nice if regular people could solve more of these problems face to face by giving each other space and “accepting each other in good faith.”

Janie

It’s not just “nice,” it’s vital for living together in a democracy when cultural seams begin to stretch apart.  The court system is overburdened as it is, not to mention prohibitively expensive and time-consuming; “taking it to the judge” is not an option for many people.  If you and your partner can get the flowers or the cake from another vendor, why not just do that?

To conclude, here’s a paragraph from Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion.  I took issue with some of his other statements in that opinion, but appreciate that he added this:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

Charlotte

Good quote. Justice Kennedy notes an important American reality here. Too many of my non-religious friends on the Left completely misunderstand this in their flippant application of “separation of church and state.” If the First Amendment means anything, it means we all have equal access to the public conversation.

 

Posted on

Can We Talk? – Religious Liberty, part two

Janie and Charlotte, college friends who grew up to occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum, continue their quest to make public discourse less ugly and stupid:

In our last conversation, we agreed that the First Amendment to the US Constitution establishes religious liberty, but then went back and forth on how to apply the multifaceted meaning of the Amendment: how to limit government from restricting people’s practice of religion (“free expression”) while disallowing government from establishing religion.

Charlotte argued that Christianity has been privileged in America since our country’s origins and that religious understandings have indeed been incorporated into our civil laws numerous times. Janie argued that Christianity has been a motivation for law, sometimes for the worse and more often for the better, but seldom the entire motivation.

Here is our continued conversation. Charlotte begins with Janie’s second question:

Does the right of religious people to advocate for our position extend to people in public office, exercising the duties of their office?  Three examples: a) Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others like them, who are granted legislative power by their constituents; b) Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky; c) Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who lost his job because of a self-published book intended for a Christian audience, one small part of which argued against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I realize each of these cases is different and may require some fine needle-threading, but what’s your view of the general principle?

charlotteYes indeed each of these cases is different. Very different. I’ll do my best.

a) It is no secret that I am no fan of Senator Cruz. I’ve written numerous letters to him disagreeing with the way he represents Christian faith in the public sphere. I think he is guilty of operating from his own small, black and white understanding of Christianity instead of representing and respecting the wide range of perspectives held by his rainbow constituency.

That said – Mr. Cruz enjoys the same constitutional freedom you and I do to express his beliefs in the public conversation. My effort is to rally voters who disagree with him to vote him out of office and to encourage citizens to keep him under a microscope so that his theocratic tendencies will be exposed and thwarted. This is one way I use my freedom.

Janie

Agreed, and I respect that.  I don’t believe the Senator’s tendencies are necessarily theocratic, but there’s a conversation for another time.

Charlotte

b) Kim Davis’ error is open and shut in my opinion. She was an elected official who took an oath to uphold the law. The moment she realized she could not in good conscience issue marriage licenses to same sex couples she should have stepped down.

Janie

I understand this view, and Evangelical Christians have actually disagreed on it: some Christians who profile2share Ms. Davis’s basic view of biblical sexuality argue that she was nonetheless duty-bound to perform her office.  If I remember correctly, though, there were other clerks in the same courthouse who could have issued a license without any conscience qualms.  The same-sex couple’s rights were not being infringed by one clerk’s refusal.

I have to wonder what I would have done in the same situation.  I would have felt duty-bound to refuse; to say something like, “I’m truly sorry [and I would be!], but because of my convictions about what the Bible says about marriage, I can’t in good conscience issue this license to you folks.  I apologize for the inconvenience, but Mrs. Jones over there would be happy to take care of you.”

Would I have the courage to do that, knowing it could cost me my job?  I’d like to think so.  But I would also like to think that, were I half of that same-sex couple, I could smile and say, “Okay, but times are changing—hope you catch up someday!”  In other words, I wish we could bear with each other as fellow citizens, without continually resorting to the courts.

Charlotte

I have no doubt you would have handled this situation much more graciously, with much more integrity than Ms. Davis.

As I understand it, yes, there were other clerks in the office who would have been willing to issue marriage licenses, however Ms. Davis refused to let them. She forced her particular religious understanding upon the rest of the clerks and upon the citizens of her county. She put her religion above the law.

(J: Hmmm.  I’ll have to look into this.)

What is also sad to me about that whole Kim Davis rigmarole is the way her actions reflected so badly on each of us as Christians and on our shared Christian faith. Taking up the victim’s mantle, she missed an excellent opportunity to demonstrate Christian principles of humility and grace. Now, because of her example, countless secular people feel confirmed in their dislike and distrust of us religious people.

c) I had to look up Kelvin Cochran’s situation and I admit this one is messy. (Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal.)

As we agreed in our first conversation, application of the First Amendment “is always the rub.” If I were the mayor of Atlanta, would I have fired such an exemplary city officer for his opinions published in a book designed for Bible study within a conservative Christian context? With only the information I have here, probably not. It looks to me like Atlanta’s move was more politically clumsy than unconstitutional.

One problem I see with the Cochran case is that, as an officer and core leader within the administration of the Mayor of Atlanta, he “serves at the pleasure…” This is a longstanding tradition that allows a mayor, governor, president to assemble a compatible team with shared perspectives and goals. If one of the mayor’s key leaders seems to have a significant difference of opinion about the equality and value of some of their citizens, then I can see the mayor’s concern. But then you and I don’t know the backstory (as is so often the case.)

Janie

True; no one ever knows the full backstory except those immediately involved.  I’m going to try to argue from a principle, not a personality; just let me address what I see as a mistaken assumption.  If you’re assuming Mr. Cochran “seems to have a significant difference of opinion about the equality and value” of gays and lesbians, I’m almost certain he would vehemently disagree.  I’ve read summaries of extracts from his book and his theme is basic Christian doctrine, not sexual behavior.  The offending chapter takes up six pages and three sentences mention homosexuality, among many sins that will separate men and women from God.  It’s not the prevailing view right now that homosexual practice is a sin.  I get that—but Mr. Cochran is arguing a theological perspective, not a social or political one.  It’s not a question of equal or unequal, but saved or unsaved.  If there were gay men on the squad I doubt he would have treated them differently, or even thought of them differently, except as sinners separated from God.  As are we all, without Christ.  I realize I’m putting thoughts in his head, but this view is pretty standard among the Evangelicals I know.

Charlotte

I see where you are coming from. After all, I too was raised with similar theological understandings. But as we have discussed before, I have changed my mind about sexuality. It’s been a long – but satisfying – journey for me. Let’s get back to that in another conversation.

Back to Mr. Cochran’s case:

Our nation established a court system in order to sort out this very kind of disagreement. The very fact that this case was filed in 2014 and is still in process supports my argument that the First Amendment is both profoundly brilliant and immensely complicated. Mr. Cochran has the freedom to argue his case and the City of Atlanta has the freedom to argue theirs. Then the Court decides. That’s how our system works.

Janie

I’m grateful for the freedom Mr. Cochran has to argue his case.  The system as originally established is admirable; problem is, over time the system has become slow, cumbersome and cranky, not to mention expensive.  It’s because we’re using the court to solve our ethical dilemmas for us, instead of working them out among ourselves.  It seems Mr. Cochran had two options when he was fired: 1) shut up and find another job, or 2) fight it, not so much to be reinstated (because that wouldn’t happen anytime soon) as to establish a precedent for future cases.

There are probably other Americans—who knows how many—in a similar situation whose cases never came to public attention because they didn’t have the wherewithal to fight.  It takes time, and money, and more time and money, and all the man wanted was to do his job.  And teach a men’s Sunday school class at church with the aid of a book he wrote, which should, it seems to me, find protection under the First Amendment. Let’s imagine he were an atheist writing a blog on his own time, whose opinions offended some members of the city council.  Should he be fired?  As long as those views didn’t interfere with his job, or his relationship with coworkers, of course not.

Charlotte

Some time ago, I wrote a blog about Pastors and Politics. I confess that if I argue for the right of progressive Christians such as Martin Luther King Jr. and William Barber to advocate for positions using the mantle of their religious beliefs, then I have to concede the right of conservative religious folks to advocate for their positions in the public conversation. Sometimes the Courts decide where the line is. Sometimes the American people decide at the ballot box. That’s how our system works. First Amendment = Messy.

Janie

And it will get messier.  I’m just wondering—is that the kind of society we really want?  Always at each other’s throats because of our religious beliefs?

Charlotte

I don’t know. Our society has been pretty messy from the get-go. It’s really quite remarkable that the Founders were able to agree enough to produce the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. That was a messy time indeed.

The Constitution of this infant nation was a brilliant creation, in part because it was written with room for this nation to grow. So now, all these years later, through adolescence and on to maturity, the people of the United States continue to deepen our understanding what it means to be “we the people … forming a more perfect union…” At the time these words were written, slaves were property and legally less than human, women could not vote or hold office and the Native Peoples were “savages” methodically driven from their ancient homes. America has been growing into its dream and attempting to live up to its ideals ever since our beginnings.

We humans have a long sad history of being at each other’s throats because of something or another. Besides the obvious human differences like color and gender, there are all these other cultural constructs like religion, nationality, ethnicity and class that give us excuse to keep each other at arm’s length instead of embracing our shared humanity. Our many differences don’t have to divide us; surely we can figure out how to tap into the strength of our diversity in order finally to become a “more perfect union.”

OK Janie, now I have a question for you: Why is it that some Evangelical Christians insist that homosexuality is only behavior and not part of the innate essence of some human beings? Why can’t they allow room for other people to be who they are and do what they do and live their lives in peace?

Janie

That’s really a theological question, and will take a few paragraphs (though, I promise, as few as possible!).  I’ll get back to you on that . . . .

Posted on

Can We Talk? Religious Liberty, Part 1

Charlotte and I met as teenagers, when her father was hired to be the new Christian education director at our church.  We became close friends in college, married within a year of each other, and went our separate ways.  Separater and  and separater, in fact: from Texas-based fundamentalism to ordained Disciples of Christ minister and progressive blogger (Charlotte) and Reformed Presbyterian conservative author (me).  Through it all we stayed in touch, even though, politically at least, we agree on almost nothing.  Is it possible to talk respectfully from opposite ends of the religious and political spectrum?  We decided to try it: pick a topic, raise a question, and explain ourselves in a way the other can understand.  This isn’t a tug-of-war, where we try to pull each other over to our side by force of argument.  In our own modest way we’re trying to beam a ray of sunshine on this political season and make it a little less ugly and stupid.

Janie

Whenever a public controversy flares up, certain buzz words and catchphrases form like lint and attach profile2themselves to the debate.  After too many twirls through the drier (to stick with the metaphor), some of the meaning rubs off.  That’s why it’s a good idea when beginning a discussion to clarify just what we mean by the words we use.

Religious Liberty became a hot topic after the 2014 Obergefell decision, when the Supreme Court

  • struck down the right of states and their constituencies to define marriage (as the right saw it), or,
  • barred states from discriminating against same-sex couples (from the left).

Almost immediately, we started getting news about private business owners refusing to provide services for gay weddings, and the consequences thereof.  A number of state legislatures began debating religiously liberty/conscience laws to protect individuals in this situation.  Opponents began putting “religious liberty” in scare quotes, implying that these concerns were trivial or hypocritical.   I disagree that these concerns are either, and here’s my definition:

Religious Liberty refers to the freedom of an individual to practice his or her religion, not only within the confines of a church but also outside in day-to-day life, so long as it causes no obvious harm or places no undue burden on a fellow citizen.  Religious liberty is guaranteed by the “free exercise” clause of Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution, wherein “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .  . .”

So, what’s your definition?  And of course, you may feel free to critique mine, so long as you give yours first!

Charlotte

charlotteBusted! “…putting ‘religious liberty’ in scare quotes…” is exactly what I did in our recent conversation when we were talking about how Ted Cruz approaches this issue. Mr. Cruz’s way of applying the Constitution to religious freedom does scare me. The way religious freedom legislation has mushroomed since Obergefell disturbs me deeply. This approach is a much smaller understanding of religious freedom in my mind. That’s why it’s in quotation marks. (Let’s talk more about that later.)

But otherwise – no – I do not mean to imply that “these concerns are trivial or hypocritical” as a rule. I believe wholeheartedly in religious liberty and I agree completely with your definition. No problem with our foundation here.

It’s the application of these constitutional guarantees that causes our dilemma.

As clear as the words of the First Amendment sound on the surface, the interpretation of what those words mean in any particular context and how those principles play out in our common life together is quite complex. Highly educated and well-intentioned lawmakers and judges have always had a variety of opinions about how to craft laws that appropriately apply these standards to our diverse American community.

I agree with your definition that the freedom to practice religion extends beyond the church doors. In the United States of America, all religious people enjoy the right to argue for our beliefs in the public conversation, to advocate for our positions, to write our letters and lobby our representatives, to vote…

(Interestingly the phrase “separation of church and state” is used by some of my liberal, secular friends to try to restrict the freedom of religious people to participate fully in the political process. That is a misunderstanding from the left that is just as troubling to me as the hints of theocracy I hear from the right.)

The problem comes when institutions of government attempt to enshrine particular religious understandings into civil law. Our nation has done this over and over again in our history and it always turns out badly. We religious people are right to expect equal protection under the law. But we do not have the right to expect legal privilege. The laws and policies of our government institutions must be fair and just for everyone.

Your turn…

Janie

Application is always the rub.  The devil is in the details, and that’s what worries both of us.  I have two questions:

  • You say that through history our nation has enshrined particular religious understandings into civil law, and it always turns out badly. What particular religious understandings do you have in mind?  I don’t need a whole list, just two or three examples to illustrate what you mean.
  • Does the right of religious people to advocate for our position extend to people in public office, exercising the duties of their office? Three examples: a) Ted  Cruz, Mike Lee and others like them, who are granted legislative power by their constituents; b) Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky; c) Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, who lost his job because of a self-published book intended for a Christian audience, one small part of which argued against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.  I realize each of these cases is different and may require some fine needle-threading, but what’s your view of the general principle?

Charlotte

Yes, I believe that throughout our history our nation has enshrined particular religious understandings into civil law. I will argue that the institution of slavery, the limitation of rights and opportunities for women and the exclusion of gay people from the marriage contract are three really big examples.

I’m aware it’s a bit of a tricky argument because one can also argue that those circumstances grew from the soil of long held cultural assumptions, not religious practice. But since I believe all our various religions are cultural constructs, I cannot help but see religious underpinnings.

The anecdotal evidence I offer is the countless sermons that have been preached arguing that slavery was God’s will, that women should stay in the place God assigned them and that marriage is between a man and a woman because … you know … Adam and Eve. I offer the evidence that masters used the Bible to intimidate their slaves, that husbands have used the Bible to suppress their wives, that parents have used the Bible to ostracize their gay children. I offer the evidence that it has been church folks who have been some of the most proactive and reactive to lobby for these widely held religious understandings to be incorporated into local, state and federal laws. I could also mention prohibition, abortion and the Sunday Blue Laws that you and I were so familiar with growing up in Dallas.

“Law is always contingent,” my attorney husband reminds me. Rules and regulations come from a people’s time and place that are inevitably bound up with our particular understandings within our culture in any given era. (That’s why arguments from natural law stand on shaky ground.) The brilliance of the First Amendment is that it was written (intentionally, I believe) with both stability and elasticity. As our nation grows and matures, we can stand firmly in our proclaimed individual rights while, at the same time, evolve in ways that increasingly make room for the rights of others.

I need to take a break. You stretch me, Janie! I’ll let you respond to question #1 and we can tackle question #2 in our next discussion.

Janie

The stretching goes both ways.  Thanks for those examples.  Of course you are correct that religion (let’s just say the Bible) has been used to support American slave law and legislation limiting the rights of women.  But does that mean the Bible was the impetus for those laws?  I don’t believe so.  American slave law was driven by economics and false science (the “scientific fact” that blacks were inferior), not primarily religion.  The Bible was used to beat slaves into submission, but it also lifted them up, created a community (the black church) and shaped the heart of the abolitionist movement.  Women have likewise been subjected throughout all times and places, partly because of biology and because of the sinful tendency of the physically strong to oppress the weak.  The Bible affirms that men and women are equal in worth, and does not bar women from the marketplace or the public square.  I’ll admit that some passages in the Bible are problematic for women (some women, anyway!), but if scripture has been used as the central prop for legally limiting their rights, it’s been misused.

Same-sex marriage legislation is a bit more complicated.  Since most of the religious liberty cases that have popped up recently concern SSM and other issues of sexuality, we’ll definitely be taking it up later.

All this is to say that the record of religion in law is murky:  Christianity has been a motivation for law, for the worse and more often for the better, but seldom the entire motivation.

It’s interesting, though: the basic principle of non-discrimination is religious in origin.  It’s an outworking of the Judaeo-Christian doctrine that humanity is created in the image of God their Creator, and all men and women are of equal worth to him.  I doubt that the principle would even exist without that basic truth.  Can American law be uncoupled entirely from Christianity, or perfectly neutral toward it?  I’m not sure it’s possible, or even desirable.

Charlotte

Yes, you and I agree that the Bible and religion have been misused in these and many more social circumstances throughout history. Has religion been origin or justification for abuses of humans one against the other? Probably both-and.

I’ll work on my response to your question #2 and get back to you soon. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, my friend.

Charlotte Vaughan Coyle