{"id":29453,"date":"2014-07-02T01:00:32","date_gmt":"2014-07-02T04:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=29453"},"modified":"2016-11-25T01:24:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T04:24:53","slug":"the-becket-fund-on-true-religious-liberty-in-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2014\/07\/02\/the-becket-fund-on-true-religious-liberty-in-america\/","title":{"rendered":"The Becket Fund on True Religious Liberty in America"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/a>, Deputy General Counsel Luke Goodrich debunked the accusation while simultaneously providing an outstanding explanation of what “religious liberty” really is:<\/p>\n

Citing cases involving the HHS mandate and gay rights, the article suggests that there has been \u201ca shift in the fund\u2019s strategy.\u201d According to unnamed \u201ccritics,\u201d the Becket Fund \u201chas become ideological\u201d and is \u201ctacking right.\u201d It is drifting away from nonpartisan defense of religious liberty for all, and is instead becoming conservative…<\/p>\n

But this is hardly a complete picture of the Becket Fund\u2019s cases…The article also omits many other Becket Fund actions, including current cases, that don\u2019t fit its narrative…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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:<\/p>\n

[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 \u201cprotecting religious minorities from discrimination…\u201d<\/p>\n

All other cases are labeled \u201cconservative causes that ha[ve] little to do with religious minorities\u2019 rights.\u201d These cases \u201calmost always [involve] Christians,\u201d who claim the right to live in accordance with \u201ctraditional sexual values\u201d — usually in the areas of abortion, contraception, or gay rights. According to the article, these cases are \u201cideological.\u201d<\/p>\n

But this simply reflects the author\u2019s own narrow-minded disdain for opposing views. The same criticism is often made by conservatives who disdain Becket\u2019s defense of Muslims. Both accusations are essentially the same: \u201cThe Becket Fund is [controversial\/ideological\/conservative\/liberal] because it defends [groups I disagree with].\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And the outstanding articulation of religious liberty [italics original, emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

At its core, however, religious liberty is, as Becket\u2019s founder put it, \u201cThe Right to Be Wrong.\u201d It is the right to live according to religious truth as you understand it, even when other segments of society think you\u2019re wrong<\/em>. That applies to Christians, even when some liberals might think they\u2019re an oppressive majority. And it applies to Muslims, even when some conservatives might think they\u2019re conspiring to \u201cimpose sharia law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Supporting religious freedom only when it aligns with your own personal beliefs<\/strong>\u2014whether they\u2019re \u201cliberal\u201d beliefs in favor of contraception and gay rights, or \u201cconservative\u201d beliefs in favor of \u201cChristian hegemony\u201d\u2014is no support for religious freedom at all<\/strong>. The Becket Fund has always defended every faith\u2019s \u201cright to be wrong,\u201d and it always will.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is a concept that many in the United States could benefit from understanding today.<\/p>\n

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<\/em> criteria for acceptability.\u00a0 (For example, Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s contention that Christians with the wrong type of beliefs — as defined by him<\/em> — are unfit for military service.)<\/p>\n

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<\/em> of those ideas.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n