The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a group that advocates for religious freedom in public society. Recently, the organization was accused of becoming politicized and leaning “conservative.” In a rebuttal posted on their website, Deputy General Counsel Luke Goodrich debunked the accusation while simultaneously providing an outstanding explanation of what “religious liberty” really is:

Citing cases involving the HHS mandate and gay rights, the article suggests that there has been “a shift in the fund’s strategy.” According to unnamed “critics,” the Becket Fund “has become ideological” and is “tacking right.” It is drifting away from nonpartisan defense of religious liberty for all, and is instead becoming conservative…

But this is hardly a complete picture of the Becket Fund’s cases…The article also omits many other Becket Fund actions, including current cases, that don’t fit its narrative…

Goodrich then cited Becket cases involving Native Americans, Sikhs, the Hutterites, a Santeria priest, and a Muslim inmate, none of which fit the accusation’s mold and all of which were apparently ignored in the accusation that Becket was “ideological.” Goodrich’s analysis of why the accusations were leveled in the first place does a good job of describing the concept of religious liberty in the United States today:

[The article] adopts a cramped view of religious liberty, dividing the world into two types of cases. The first are the true religious liberty cases, which involve “protecting religious minorities from discrimination…”

All other cases are labeled “conservative causes that ha[ve] little to do with religious minorities’ rights.” These cases “almost always [involve] Christians,” who claim the right to live in accordance with “traditional sexual values” — usually in the areas of abortion, contraception, or gay rights. According to the article, these cases are “ideological.”

But this simply reflects the author’s own narrow-minded disdain for opposing views. The same criticism is often made by conservatives who disdain Becket’s defense of Muslims. Both accusations are essentially the same: “The Becket Fund is [controversial/ideological/conservative/liberal] because it defends [groups I disagree with].”

And the outstanding articulation of religious liberty [italics original, emphasis added]:

At its core, however, religious liberty is, as Becket’s founder put it, “The Right to Be Wrong.” It is the right to live according to religious truth as you understand it, even when other segments of society think you’re wrong. That applies to Christians, even when some liberals might think they’re an oppressive majority. And it applies to Muslims, even when some conservatives might think they’re conspiring to “impose sharia law.”

Supporting religious freedom only when it aligns with your own personal beliefs—whether they’re “liberal” beliefs in favor of contraception and gay rights, or “conservative” beliefs in favor of “Christian hegemony”—is no support for religious freedom at all. The Becket Fund has always defended every faith’s “right to be wrong,” and it always will.

That is a concept that many in the United States could benefit from understanding today.

It’s been noted here many times that society is developing an inaccurate understanding for the term “tolerance.” Similarly, some critics are trying to redefine society’s understanding of the term “freedom,” as well, implying such freedom applies only to groups or ideas that meet their criteria for acceptability.  (For example, Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s contention that Christians with the wrong type of beliefs — as defined by him — are unfit for military service.)

It is no small irony that Christians have been the loudest voices calling for the “free marketplace of ideas” and the right to express their religious beliefs without reprisal — while others in society, whether “liberal” or even self-proclaimed “liberty” advocates, have demanded the oppression of those ideas.

Contrary to some accusations, Christianity itself advocates for religious liberty — it forces itself on no one, but calls on men to make the free choice to accept Christ’s salvation. In the “marketplace of ideas,” the Gospel wins.

It would seem that some are so opposed to the Gospel that they would undermine America’s core principle of religious freedom to attack it.

ADVERTISEMENT