The Social Progressive Attempt to Redefine Religious Freedom

One thing that concerns me about social progressives in both Australia and the USA is that they are not really interested in constitutional rights or even the rule of law. They appear, at least to me, so assured of their own ideological self-righteousness that they feel entitled to destroy any dissenters to their progressive ideology. This is never more evident than on the subject of freedom of religion. Some are already campaigning to redefine freedom of religion as freedom of worship. That is to say, religious freedom is restricted to a house of worship and the practice worship, and does not extend to the public square, or even to education and the charities sectors.

Let me give you an example. At the recent DNC event in Philly, the Democratic Platform Committee issued a statement which declares, among other things, that:

“We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”

Note, this does not say we support religious freedom according to the US Constitution, or even according to the rule of law,  rather, it accepts religious freedom only insofar as it accords with the “progressive vision.” That really scares me. This is religion within the limits of progressive ideology. Such a limitation necessitates both a redefinition of religion and also the necessary repression of religion. You may have religion to the extent that I find it agreeable with my progressive beliefs and my progressive values. The problem is that that is not freedom!

Let me add, I am actually sympathetic to the progressive cause to a point. For instance, I have heard the complaint – though it might be no more than anecdotal or hearsay – of a religious charity turning away a homeless person because he or she was transgender. Now let me say that I can imagine a difficult situation where a woman’s shelter might not take in a biological male who self-identifies as female, so this can be complex, and details would be required to see how it was handled. But generally I think we would all agree that turning away a homeless person in need because of his or her sexual identity is neither Christian nor charitable. Christians help anyone in need, no qualifications or criteria, that’s what Good Samaritans do. To do otherwise is unChristian.

That said, I fear that malpractices or poor decision-making by a few organizations could ultimately be used as justification to crush the religious freedoms of faith-based charities  and educational institutions in any and every respect. I envisage a scenario where institutions will have their ability to hire persons exclusively from their own faith tradition and their ability to offer services shaped by their religious beliefs questioned, curtailed, and perhaps even attacked. My own hope in Australia is that forums will be set up to negotiate a way so that faith-based schools and charities can be maximally inclusive to minorities, while also maintaining the integrity of their religious beliefs and their right to exercise that faith in the public square.

I don’t know what the future holds here, it is going to be interesting in 2017, but I am hoping to write a book on this topic, so watch this space!

Photo from Pixbay.com.