Again, see the Yuval Levin article at the top of the page. This is essentially forcing anyone who doesn't toe the line for the Church of Progressive Liberalism out of the public square by defining "religious liberty" down to smallest possible sphere. That's how European countries with established state churches used to operate, but Madison felt strongly that American religious minorities deserved better than that.
Not going to lie, I started multiple posts trying to respond to the article (which I really liked) and deleted them all because I didn't feel like I could articulate a reasonable response to it without spending way more time than I have. That being said, I'll try to do a quick version:
1. Almost nothing in the parade of horribles the article enumerated bothered me. I'm 100% ok with a freedom of religion that allows
individuals untrammeled freedom to practice their religion, but does not allow them to impose their beliefs on others outside of very narrow contexts (see: the civil-rights section in the Texas RFRA).
2. One of the reasons I'm ok with the parade of horribles is that I don't think Madison is the last word on the role of religion in America. I subscribe to a more Jeffersonian view, which emphasizes freedom of belief but includes the important caveat that "if anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market." In other words, I believe that the law of the nation does and should trump the law of God (Render unto Caeser...). And I believe the ultimate law of the nation is that "all men are created equal."
Madison said
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.
I (and I think Jefferson) disagree with the bolded. At the very least, I do not believe that an effective society can be designed with the caveat that all of its rules are subordinate to the religious edicts of its people, especially when We The People are such an incredibly diverse group. I mean, shouldn't it be against the religion of every Christian to pay taxes in a state that has the death penalty? Or even in a nation that routinely uses lethal force in environments that don't quite meet the requirements of Christian Just War theory?
3. I simply disagree with the assertion that liberalism is a "religion." I agree that liberal values do, in some important ways, subsume Christian values. However, I think the distinctions are just as important. For one, the moral authority of liberalism is not found in the Bible or divine revelation, but in the founding documents of our country (which, admittedly, were heavily influenced by Christian tradition). Again, "all men are created equal" is- I believe- the foundational principle of our country. To me, this means that the rights of the individual must trump the rights of a group. Certainly, it hardly makes sense to say that there must be a barrier between religion and State but that a belief in the State is effectively a religion. Yet that seems to be the argument advanced in Levin's piece.
4. I will gladly admit that the specific question being raised here- should a business owned and controlled by a conservative christian that serves weddings be legally prevented from refusing to serve a gay wedding- is a close one and that it is not clear that much harm will arise from it being answered in the negative. I also agree that any threats made against the pizza place were completely inappropriate and I hope that the people who made them are held accountable for them if legally appropriate. However, I do think that the larger principle is important, incredibly so. A reluctance founded in religion to cater a gay wedding may not be harmful, but one doesn't need to look too hard to find examples of religious beliefs that are
obviously harmful. It was against school rules at Bob Jones University for students to go on interracial dates. A student who went to BJU and then went on to, say, open up a restaurant, would have a very strong argument that it was against his religious beliefs to serve customers when one was black and the other was white. Mormons used to clearly treat blacks as inferior. Should Mormons in Salt Lake City have been free to turn away black customers based on their beliefs?
I disagree that religion is being chased out of the public square. American Christians are not persecuted by any stretch of the imagination. We are completely free to worship, to proselytize, to observe our sacraments. Our churches have tax exempt status. The state makes no attempt to control what we say or what we believe. However, I also believe that the "public square" in America is broadening. Our country accepts more people of more diverse backgrounds and beliefs today than it has in the past. I think that if religious people are leaving the public square it is because
they can't accept the general broadening of the square, not because they are being forced out. And, honestly, I'm ok with that. The greatest accomplishment of the American project has been its gradual expansion of the classes of people who benefit from the lofty idea of equality. I will be the first to say that no business should have the right to discriminate against someone because of their religious beliefs. At the same time, I also believe that no religious belief should enable a business to discriminate against another citizen. Everyone is welcome into the square, but only to the extent they are willing to tolerate everyone else in the public square.
