Expect to See This Argument against Religious Freedom

Based on Frank Bruni’s New York Times article “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana,” wherein he says “how easily” the “very traditions and texts that inform many Christians’ denunciation of same-sex relationships…can be [and are being] understood in a different way,” it sounds to me like the argument that may soon be taken up against our religious freedom will go something like this: 

Some Christian churches endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage, therefore homosexuality and same-sex marriage are compatible with Christianity. Therefore people who oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage aren’t really motivated by their religion; they’re motivated by bigotry. And since their opposition doesn’t have its basis in religion (but only in bigotry), therefore we aren’t required to protect their “freedom” to teach and act in accordance with those beliefs.

Watch for it.

(See responses to Bruni’s article by Rod Dreher and Owen Strachan.)

Comments

[DGFischer]

>>> Some Christian churches endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage, therefore homosexuality and same-sex marriage are compatible with Christianity. Therefore people who oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage aren’t really motivated by their religion; they’re motivated by bigotry.

Ummm .... could it be that the churches that endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage are motivated by fear of retribution from an increasingly vicious LGBT community?

Could it be that the churches that endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage have a low regard for Scriptures and drift with the culture?

Could it be that the churches that endorse homosexuality and same-sex marriage are influenced by the members who have gay members in the family and would like to have their religious foundations' sanction?

Bruni makes poor conclusions because he is limited by his viewpoint, acknowledging secularist concepts while ignoring the Biblical foundations. There is ironically a narrow close-mindedness in his "openness."

[Marc L]

If 2 people claiming the same religion have differing beliefs, how do you decide which is religiously motivated? You go to the source of the religious teaching. In this case the Bible.

The options are (a) one side is religiously motivated and the other isn't. (b) Both ideas are religiously motivated but someone is wrong. (c) neither is religiously motivated but informed by other factors.

As government is forbidden by the First Amendment to play judge in that instance, you err on the side of freedom and give benefit of the doubt to the religious claim.

[Marc L]

Assuming a case can be made from the religious authority (bible).

[scott r]

We are not motivated by bigotry, but by Truth! Sodomy is forbidden by God in His unchangeable written Holy Word for our benefit. Sodomy is against nature/design, society, family, life and common sense. Sodomy is scientifically and statistically proven unhealthy, both causing and spreading disease and death. Christian churches that endorse sodomy are antichristian. They deny Truth and replace it with fantasy. SSM is likewise an antichristian fabricated Faustian fantasy. For a Christian church to endorse such idolatry simply means they are no longer a Christian church.

Please read "Making Gay Okay" by Robert R. Reilly to help you understand how rationalizing homosexual behavior is changing everything.

[DGFischer]

Marc,

I love your insights, and believe your analysis is sound, though I question your third option only one one case. If we think along the lines of motivation, a true motivation that is religious will be appreciated as that. Modern society fudges at the idea of being religious, and talk more of spirituality. Still, there tends to be much confusion as to a true distinction of these two, where in many cases they are synonymous.

So to your first option I make note of Jesus' warning to His disciples, "You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers." (Matt. 24: 9). A credible religious motivation would understand the consequences of its expression, even if it causes rancor. An expression that opts to compromise or adopt the dictates of the culture could not be so religious as calculating.

This idea is being discussed right now in the reading program that Amy is promoting (Finding Truth).

[Don Howatt]

True, but it seems Columbo could easily expose the faulty premise.

[Chris Hamilton]

What do you expect from a culture where an atheist can call himself a Christian. By that same logic the atheist Christian is opposed to belief in God so that is bigotry. So wouldn't atheism be bigotry as well? So atheism shouldn't be defended by the constitution either. I'm not surprised in a culture that thinks they have the right to redefine words as if there is no such thing as meaning and as if there is no consequence. It is only a matter of time before churches will be going underground in America.

[Louis Kuhelj]

No one wants to lose their livelihood and thus remain silent. Capitalism, the silent killer of the Christian message. Why am I not surprised. In the beginning it was not so...when the church embraced charitocracy...the family based system...instead of this capitalism that rips the family of God apart...leaving us divided and ultimately conquered. Yes...ideas have consequences.

[Amy]

Louis, the free market is free. The government forcing businesspeople to do things that go against their conscience is neither the free market nor free. The problem is a government that is too intrusive, not the free market.

[Josh Reynolds]

Frank Bruni may be a voice for the gay community and America at large, (particularly the millenials). What I'm hearing is no understanding and/or belief as to why Christians could possibly need religious liberty. It reminds of when I was in college in the aughts after we went to war with Iraq in 2003. The vocal liberal students in my classes, along with the professors, felt the war was a sham for America to conquer oil. I stood up to say that 9/11 was an attack by Islamic fundamentalism to kill all the unconverted. I felt my view was dismissed as too preposterous. The same goes for this issue of the day. The left refuses to consider the right of conscience. They dismiss out of hand that someone's moral conviction should be respected and that they should not be punished for abiding by it. Bruni takes no consideration of it; his sides rights trump peoples of faith, period. Not only that, I hear him identifying his enemy - orthodox Christians. His bigotry is to stand and judge our beliefs, beliefs he obviously hasn't had the compassion to try to understand, but rather to uncivilly belittle. I'll say again what I said to a homosexual on a forum the other day who felt justified to attack Christianity for "attacking" him with our beliefs; "you could remove all Christian and bibles from this country and that still wouldn't cure your angst." A house divided against itself cannot stand. They will continue to attack because we are the only thing that stand in their way.

[Josh Reynolds]

To clarify, in class I tried to justify the Iraq war after 9/11. The stated case was we were there to take out Sadam for being a threat to America. I believe that was true but I feel the bigger, unspoken reason, was to fight the terrorists on their own turf. I think leadership at the time understood that Al Qaeda represented a murderous, hidden form of Islam that meant to kill as many whereever or whenever they had the chance and that they needed to be drawn out to fight.

[Damian]

The above argument makes no sense. That could apply to anything. Some Christians feel "x" is compatible with the bible therefore anyone who believes or teaches otherwise is motivated by bigotry. That simply doesn't follow. I'm sure their were people that actually thought slave ownership was compatible with Christianity so the writer of the article would have to conclude that any rejection of slave ownership by Christian citizens on religious grounds could only be motivated by bigotry. That seems rather odd doesn't it?

[Lane]

It is obvious that Mr. Bruni knows nothing of Christian theology, much less taken the time to view or read the scriptural position on the issue. His 'proof' of the compatibility of Christianity & homosexuality is scant at best, and cherry picking at worst. Anyone can endorse their position by such methods, but that doesn't make their position sound. As it has been often said, "all people are created equal, but all ideas are not." As it has also been said, "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still," and it would be interesting to see how Mr. Bruni would fare in a scriptural/biblical position debate on the issue

[Mike]

Well, sure the argument is nonsensical.
But that fact does not comfort us, because nonsense is what is winning in legislatures and the courtrooms these days.

Might wanna sell your cloak and buy a sword.

[Mo]

Homosexual activists have now declared open war on us.

A good question to put forth at this point is why aren't churches talking about this to their people? We're long past the point where we can hide in our churches doing our little Bible studies and hope that it all just blows over and goes away!

But no one wants to deal with it.