News

Bishop Budde and the Hypocrisy of Religious Freedom

The president of the United States attacked a member of the clergy for the content of her sermon, demanding an apology. A member of Congress called for that bishop—an American citizen—to be deported because of what she preached in the pulpit. Twenty-one other members proposed a congressional resolution “condemning” Bishop Budde’s sermon.

It may be possible to conjure up a more shocking violation of religious freedom, but it’s not easy.

The full power of the bully pulpit directed against a cleric for exercising the rights deemed sacred by our First Amendment.

A Congressman threatening deportation and, in the process, reminding us of the Christian Nationalist misuse of our immigration system to try to banish those whose religious beliefs they reject.

Members of Congress whipping votes in the House of Representatives to condemn the sermon, suggesting that, theologically, they know “biblical teaching” better than the bishop.

 One of the reasons our country’s founders separated church and state was to prevent such abuses of power. That separation guarantees our freedom to live as ourselves and believe as we choose, so long as we don’t harm others. For many clergy, that means the freedom to preach about love and mercy.

So, where are the so-called defenders of religious freedom?

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the organization I run, has condemned these abuses of power and violations of religious freedom. But where is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has several “religious freedom” cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term? Or the Alliance Defending Freedom, which claims to have won 15 “religious freedom” cases at the Supreme Court? Why is First Liberty Institute, which fought to let a public school official pray on the field at football games in the name of “religious freedom”, so silent?

They’ve issued no statements. Their steady stream of talking heads isn’t on Fox News decrying this abuse. The flurry of fearmongering, fundraising emails have yet to hit inboxes.

Instead, we’ve heard only the proverbial deafening silence.

Why so silent? Because these groups are committed to Christian Nationalism, not religious freedom.

This clear failure to defend true religious freedom makes sense if you understand these organizations’ true missions. For instance, ADF, which now boasts an annual budget of over nine figures, claims to “advance[] every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth.” But before it had hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on public relations and branding, it was more explicit about its goal: “Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.” ADF is on a mission to bestow favor on ultra-conservative Christians, at the expense of everyone else.

Theirs is not a fight for religious freedom, but a weaponized religious power that turns this hallowed protection from a shield into a sword that can be used to discriminate, harm, or, in this case, attack a bishop who has the courage to stand up to the anointed leader of arising tide of Christian Nationalism.

This is not the first time they’ve exposed the soft underbelly of their hypocrisy. As Andrew L. Seidel notes in his book “American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom,” in the wake of Trump’s first Muslim ban, “none defended the religious freedom of Muslims . . . The Crusaders defended a ban that Trump repeatedly confessed targeted adherents of a non-Christian faith. Their hypocrisy is eloquent. Their mission is not to defend religious freedom, but to privilege Christianity.”

These groups will not speak truth to power because power is the end goal. They are fighting to secure power and privilege for the “right” kind of Christian: straight, white, conservative Christian men.

Trump’s “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

A congressman threatening a bishop with deportation for preaching?
A congressional resolution condemning a specific sermon?
A president singling out a religious leader and demanding an apology because he didn’t like a sermon?

These actions fail the most basic religious liberty test – because religious liberty is not their goal. 

 All of this can be avoided if these groups stopped tearing down the wall of separation between church and state and instead recommitted to honoring that founding principle.

If they did this, there wouldn’t be inaugural prayers and church services to get upset about in the first place. We’d have a government that defends religious freedom for all, not just the chosen few. And we’d be a big step closer to America attaining her promises of freedom without favor and equality without exception. 

 

 

Previous ArticleNext Article