The purpose of Capitol & Cathedral<\/a> is to provide commentary and analysis on the role of religion in the 2016 presidential election. But people who are aware of my work will know that I occasionally venture into raising questions and offering thoughts\u00a0about the role of religion in public life<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last week, I discussed<\/a> whether believing marriage is the union of a man and a woman is the same thing as \u201chaving religious objections to LGBT people.\u201d Readers\u2019 opinions varied. But I raised the question<\/a> because I often see the progressives\u00a0take it as a given that irrational animus is the only conceivable reason a person could believe that the state should not recognize same-sex unions as marriages.<\/p>\n Now I want to push back against a line I often hear from conservatives. They basically draw an equal sign between opposing homosexuality and being Christian.<\/p>\n Biola University now finds itself arguing for its right to be evangelical. https:\/\/t.co\/6HjVdjPyck<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 ERLC (@ERLC) June 26, 2016<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a typical example. In fact, Biola University and other California institutions are arguing that, based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman, they should be exempt from certain LGBT nondiscrimination laws. They do not believe they should lose government funding for running their institution in accordance with their belief about marriage. But notice the implication\u00a0here, which I see quite often: Evangelical = opposed to homosexuality.<\/p>\n Another example:<\/p>\n Mary Eberstadt: There are increasing attacks on Christian charities simply for being Christian charities. @RyanTAnd<\/a> @kathrynlopez<\/a> @NRO<\/a><\/p>\n\n