Douthat and Persecution

Source

In my Sunday column, I [Ross Douthat] wrote about the possible culture-war scenarios that await us once same-sex unions are recognized as marriages from sea to shining sea, and contemplated the kinds of pressure, legal and otherwise, that might be brought to bear against individuals and institutions that hew to the older understanding of matrimony. (This contemplation was occasioned by Jan Brewer’s veto of Arizona’s religious-liberty bill last week, which followed a massive and massively misleading media campaign against the legislation.) Along the way, I included the following comment, trying to contextualize the kinds of pressure that religious conservatives could face:

I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

Responding to Rod Dreher’s belief that persecution is what this is, Douthat says:

I don’t deny that there are forms of social and legal pressure that can shade into persecution, and that individuals can be effectively persecuted in particular situations even if persecution isn’t happening society-wide. But as a general statement about a situation facing believers (or any group), I think the word carries fairly strong overtones of direct and potentially violent coercion — as in, for instance, this definition: “a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race or beliefs” — and that it should be deployed accordingly, and not expanded to encompass public policies that disfavor religious groups, or public rhetoric that criticizes a particular religious teaching.