A narrowed religious liberty vs. erotic liberty

A narrowed religious liberty vs. erotic liberty January 19, 2015

Religious liberty, Al Mohler observes, is being restricted to private, unexpressed inner feelings and to what happens within the walls of a church.  Whereas traditionally, religions liberty extended to convictions that apply to external behavior and views about society.  But today religious views about how a person lives his or her life in the world are  increasingly are being outlawed and punished.  Dr. Mohler also gives a name to the specific conflict we are seeing today:  religious liberty vs. erotic liberty.

via Religious Liberty vs. Erotic Liberty — Religious Liberty is Losing – AlbertMohler.com.

In any historical moment, certain liberties collide with other liberties. We are now witnessing a direct and unavoidable collision between religious liberty with what is rightly defined as erotic liberty — a liberty claimed on the basis of sexual identity and activity. Religious liberty is officially recognized in the Bill of Rights — even in the very first amendment — and the framers of the American order did not claim to have established this right to free religious expression, but to have recognized it as a pre-existent right basic to citizenship.

Erotic liberty is new on the scene, but it is central to the moral project of modernity — a project that asserts erotic liberty, which the framers never imagined, as an even more fundamental liberty than freedom of religion. The logic of erotic liberty has worked its way from law schools and academia into popular culture, entertainment, public policy, and Supreme Court decisions. . . .

[Atlanta Fire] Chief [Kelvin] Cochran wrote a book [stating that homosexuality is sinful], as a Christian and for his fellow Christians. According to the Times article, he gave a copy of the book to three city employees who had not asked for it. In response, he was fired by Mayor Reed.

The opinion column published just days after Chief Cochran’s firing was written by Frank Bruni, an openly-gay columnist whose essays often appear in the “Sunday Review” section of the paper. In this case, he cites his own sexual orientation in making his argument in “Your God and My Dignity.”

His argument is that claims of endangered religious liberty for conservative Christians are “absurd.” He complains about “religious people getting a pass that isn’t warranted.” Religious liberty, he claims, is being used as “a fig leaf for intolerance.”

The legalization of same-sex marriage cannot and will not infringe upon religious liberty, he claims, because such laws “do not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple or mosque; no clergy member will be compelled to preside over gay nuptials. Civil weddings are covered. That’s it.”

The really chilling part of his statement is the restriction of religious liberty to “religious services or what happens in a church, temple, or mosque.” This is becoming more and more common, as major political and legal figures speak more and more of “freedom of worship” as a replacement for religious liberty. Religious liberty certainly includes freedom of worship, but it by no means stops there.

Furthermore, when the proponents of same-sex marriage and the new sexual revolution promise even to respect what goes on in a church, temple, or mosque, they evidently cannot keep their arguments straight. In the very same column, Bruni complains that religious congregations are given too much liberty to define their own ministry. He laments that “churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ to anti-discrimination laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”

The front lines of the battle for religious liberty will be at the door of your congregation very soon, if this column is any indication — and it is. While promising to respect “freedom of worship,” Bruni openly implies that congregations should not have the right to hire and fire ministers or clergy on the basis of their sexual orientation or beliefs. What kind of liberty is that?

It is no liberty at all. This argument spells the end of religious liberty in any meaningful sense. What about the right of religious schools to hire, admit, and house on the basis of Christian moral judgment? If Bruni complains about congregations having the right to “hire and fire clergy as they wish,” we can only imagine what he would want to see mandated in terms of religious schools and institutions.

Read all of Dr. Mohler’s essay.

HT:  Paul McCain

"Yes, my church will have a sunrise service at 6 AM (followed by services at ..."

DISCUSSION: Easter
"A "day" is a a 24-hour period in the same way that a piece of ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"Interesting... no, wait, was this the site where I said that Genesis was poetry not ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"You are not focusing of how time works and what it is. It all depends ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”

Browse Our Archives