Religious Freedom

Today on his radio bulletin Breakpoint, Manhattan Declaration co-author Chuck Colson claimed that the Obama administration has abandoned freedom of religion in order to advance LGBT rights. While attacking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech on LGBT rights abroad as “disastrous foreign policy,” Colson claimed that “in one fell swoop, she changed our God-given right to freedom of religion, a public act, to a much more restricted ‘freedom of worship,’ a private act, which any Chinese official could go along with,” while placing the “‘right to love in the way they choose’ as a fundamental human right.”

Of course, this argument that the mere use of the phrase “freedom of worship” has negated the freedom of religion ignores Secretary Clinton’s speeches on the freedom of religion, and as Kyle pointed out earlier, even former President George W. Bush frequently talked about the “freedom of worship.” Bush used the phrase four times in a 2008 proclamation, which if issued by Clinton or President Obama would surely have created uproar from the Religious Right.

But never mind all that, because for Colson, whipping-up anti-gay paranoia is far more important than the facts:

It started as a drip, drip, drip. Then the flow increased, and now it’s a gusher: The Obama administration has decided to promote and emphasize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered rights—and it is doing so at the expense of everyone’s God-given freedom of religion. Those are tough words, but regrettably, true words.

In December 9, 2009 in a major address entitled, “Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century,” Secretary of State Clinton said people “must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose.” Did you catch that? In one sentence, little noticed at the time, Mrs. Clinton showed the Administration’s true priorities. In one fell swoop, she changed our God-given right to freedom of religion, a public act, to a much more restricted “freedom of worship,” a private act, which any Chinese official could go along with. And at the same time, Mrs. Clinton, speaking for the administration, elevated the quote “right to love in the way they choose” as a fundamental human right.

Lest you think I’m overreacting to an isolated statement, the intervening years have amply borne out my concerns. Freedom of worship has been substituted for freedom of religion in speech after speech by administration officials. Just last month, the Secretary told a gathering of diplomats that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” She also said the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” As I mentioned before on BreakPoint, this is a disastrous foreign policy. African nations are already up in arms, and it certainly isn’t going to help us with Muslim nations, who view U.S. advocacy for homosexuality as proof of Western decadence.

Not to be outdone, President Obama told a pro-gay-rights group, “Every single American—gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender—every single American deserves to be treated equally before the law.” Does that include marriage? Well, the President’s secretary for Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, has just said that he “absolutely” supports same-sex marriage. The Administration has already refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. And before the EEOC, officials have said in a contest “between religious liberty and sexual liberty,” sexual liberty triumphs.

Can you see where all this is headed?

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) appeared on WallBuilders Live today where he joined right-wing historian David Barton and his cohost Rick Green in attacking the judiciary, which Franks called “the biggest threat that we have.” The judiciary has always been a favorite target of conservatives, and recently Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have declared an all-out assault on the judicial branch. Franks, who is the Co-Chair of Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign, argued that the courts are trying “inch by inch” to “take away our religious freedom,” and even argued that “if Mr. Obama appoints additional people to the Supreme Court that the Constitution itself will be fundamentally abrogated”:

Franks: I think there is very few things that are a greater threat than the court systems because they are not accountable to any sort of response by the people. It really is the biggest threat that we have. Ultimately, as a people, we only have two opportunities, we have to defend ourselves in courts and the public square vociferously, we have to be strong and not let them inch by inch take away our religious freedom. And secondly, we have to understand that this Constitutional republic that we’ve been given affords us the opportunity to decide what people we put in the White House that chooses the courts, the people in the courts, the judges. Right now I don’t want to sound political but I don’t have any choice. I am convinced that if Mr. Obama appoints additional people to the Supreme Court that the Constitution itself will be fundamentally abrogated, I mean it is that clear to me.

On Monday, a law went into effect in France banning Muslim women from wearing burqas in public. The issue was featured on The 700 Club today and it was fascinating to watch Pat Robertson and co-host Terry Meeuwsen struggle to figure out how to react.

On the one hand, it is clearly a violation of religious freedom  ... but on the other hand it is only a violation of the religious freedom of Muslims, so it is okay. 

After all, Muslims could be hiding bombs under those burkas and they are always stopping and praying, which is an "invasion of the personal rights of everyone else," and if they are not stopped, they are going to just keep demanding special treatment and so, basically, if they don't like it they should just "go back to North Africa":

On Thursday, Rep. Peter King, in his capacity as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, will kick off hearings which seek to investigate the "radicalization" of Muslims in the United States.

While lots of religious leaders are uniting in opposition to these hearings, others, like Richard Land, think they are a fantastic idea and a great opportunity for Muslims to prove that they are not terrorists ... and if they dare to object, they are only making things worse:

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, praised the upcoming meetings for allowing Muslim leaders to separate themselves from Islamic terrorists and establish their loyalty to the United States.

“This is a great opportunity for the Muslim community to come forward and denounce terrorism,” Land told The Christian Post on Monday.

The long-time religious freedom expert said he would advise Muslim leaders to reject the acts of American terrorists – such as that of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square – and to aid authorities to stop the recruitment of American Muslims by terrorist groups.

“If they (Muslims) don’t do that and attack the questioning, they’re exacerbating the problem,” Land said.

For the record, let me point out that Land is currently serving his fifth term as a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.