The Pope, Donald Trump, and Trying to Understand Religious Liberty

Yesterday, Donald Trump got into a rhetorical battle with the Pope after the Pontiff said that a person who builds walls not bridges is not Christian. In his response, the Donald said that as President, he would, “not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President.” While the coverage of the exchange has been focused on whether or not Trump is a Christian, or the Pope should have picked a fight with such a bully, religious liberty seems to have become a topic unimportant to public discourse.

Over the past few years, it seems we have heard that term so much that it has become part of the cultural white noise that we no longer really hear. When the Supreme Court made the Obergefell ruling, religious liberty was the buzzword that surrounded all the coverage of Kim Davis in Kentucky. In the weeks that followed, people, mostly men, were bemoaning the death of religious liberty at the hands of those would support or participate in marriage equality. For some, the arguments aren’t that new. They sound very similar to those Jerry Falwell Sr. said during the 1980s while the Supreme Court was deciding the issue of prayer in school. 

Throughout the history of American Christianity, and Protestant Christianity in general, religious liberty has been something of a driving force. As a Baptist-flavored Christian, my own inherited faith is rife with discussions of religious liberty, but that term is loaded with meaning. When the topic crops up of how America’s founding colonists came to this continent looking for religious liberty, I will quip that many of those religious people were looking for a liberty for themselves, and not for others. Though intended as a joke, it is a little harsh, I know. However, there is some truth to it. Roger Williams, one of the founders of the first Baptist churches in America, was run out of the Massachusetts colony when he and group started meeting outside of the Puritan tradition. 

In their book, Baptists in America, Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins spend a lot of time talking about the arguments over religious liberty in the life of Baptists. While it seems that the book was not intended to be a written discussion of religious liberty, the defining moments the authors chose as the developmental narrative of their book all required discussions of how the topic of government and religion created opposing views. Both of these opponents were claiming to be supporting and defending the idea of religious liberty. While reading this book for a Sunday School class, discussions often went to discussing how one side or another was not really standing up for religious liberty. Typically, this was the side we disagreed with.

After two-thirds of the book, the authors went on to explain that there were two competing views of religious liberty. One was an “accommodationist” view and the other a “separatist” view. The best way I can describe this is that the accommodationist wants legislation to take into account the ground religion has already established and make sure that ground does not shrink. The separatist wants legislation to defend social ground as a whole, wherein faith can then speak to its own position within the social order. In my mind, I think of it like a playground. The former gets to establish the playground that government then has to mow and take care of while the latter wants government to create and maintain a big playground that religion then plays on. 

There, clear as mud.

Those positions haven’t really changed. In the second paragraph, I was talking about Kim Davis and the aftermath of the Obergefell ruling. Today, Ted Cruz referenced that ruling as the reason he is receiving support from Christians. He calls the current atmosphere of the court around marriage equality an attack against religious freedom. (hyperlink) His argument is that the Court’s decision is eroding the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the foundation of our country. It’s not much of a secret that Ted Cruz, and his father, have pretty radical views of faith and how they intertwine with the future of America. His new endorsement from Glenn Beck is probably the best example. In the senator’s opinion, notably is it the role of government to accommodate Christianity first when making legislation, America is itself a Christian nation. 

The separatist view, which is my personal view for full disclosure, would say that as long as the government is not telling me I have to have a certain kind of marriage, I’m OK with the ruling. My heterosexual marriage is doing just fine, and when I practice my faith, I am doing the same things I was doing before. Technically, both views are defending religious liberty. 

The question is, whose religious liberty are you protecting?

Image: courtesy of Breitbart.com