We’ve all seen the bumper sticker that spells COEXIST by combining the symbols of major world religions in a convenient order. The bumper sticker seems reasonable; after all, isn’t it just representing the world as it is—people of many religions all existing side by side in the same space? If that were all the bumper sticker meant, then I might consider putting one on my car; it’s an obviously true fact about the world. However, the sticker means much more than that—it doesn’t just commend the idea of people of many different religions all living in the same space, it preaches the doctrine that the ideas promoted by many different religions must be appreciated at the same level.

The distinction between accepting people and accepting ideas is a subtle yet fundamental concept when it comes to discussing tolerance, and today’s world has gotten it exactly backwards. The unruly protest sparked by Riley Gaines‘ talk at San Francisco State University earlier this month is a case in point.

Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who has held the All-American champ title 12 times, gave a talk at San Francisco State University on April 6 to speak out against the inclusion of transgender women in female sports. Given that Gaines’ message is unpopular in many universities, it was entirely to be expected that she would have received some pushback and perhaps had to engage in some difficult conversations. And one wouldn’t expect much different to occur at a university — an institution ostensibly dedicated to pursuing and disseminating truth, which often requires a clash of conflicting ideas.

But Gaines received far more than uncomfortable conversation—she received a shouting attack. Angry supporters of women’s-sports-trans-inclusion got so verbally violent and physically intimidating that city police had to arrive to help Gaines safely exit the campus. View a short video of the ugly interaction here (this video does contain profanity), which shows an irate trans supporter shouting the mantra “trans rights are human rights” mixed with foul language.

How can an ideology so dedicated to “tolerance” produce adherents who are so obviously intolerant? Herein lies our critical distinction tolerating ideas and tolerating people are two entirely different things. When people praise “tolerance” as a virtue, much of its appeal comes
from the traditional understanding of the word. Tolerance traditionally means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you ought to respect them as fellow human beings, even if you don’t agree with their ideas.

Under this interpretation of tolerance, people can vigorously argue, debate, and refute each other, but at the end of the day they all realize that they each retain special dignity by virtue of simply being human beings created in God’s image, and they can part ways still respecting each other.

However, the contemporary interpretation of “tolerance” flips things on its head. To many, the word still deceptively retains the dignity associated with its noble meaning, but it is now completely redefined: tolerance means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you must accept their ideas as if they were worthy of belief. Attempting to refute, persuade, or even advocate ideas contrary to someone else’s beliefs thus becomes aggression and intolerance.

The problem with this interpretation is that there really are no grounds for accepting all ideas equally. I can accept and respect all other human beings because they are fellow human beings created in the image of God, but should I be forced to readily accept all ideas by virtue of them being… well… “fellow ideas” with my own? To say such implies that all ideas—by virtue of simply being ideas—are worthy of acceptance or respect. But, unlike people, ideas can be stack-ranked according to value. The idea that “gravity is real” is a whole lot more valuable than the idea that “gravity isn’t real.”

Unfortunately, this contemporary definition of tolerance is often accompanied by intolerance of people—the exact opposite of its traditional definition. The protestors at Gaines’ talk disagreed with her ideas, but translated that into attacks on her as a person.

Our culture desperately needs to recover the proper virtue of tolerance—accepting all people, but not all ideas.

If you ever doubted that we wrestle against spiritual forces of evil who call good evil and evil good, then please watch these two videos of brief statements made on the floor of the Illinois House on Wednesday.

First, watch this video of one of Illinois’ finest lawmakers, the always gracious Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), who civilly expressed his views on the injustice of eradicating public recognition of sex differences, including in women’s private spaces and sports.

Then watch this video of Illinois’ worst lawmaker, the sanctimonious, arrogant, and venomous lesbian Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who, in response to Morrison, hurled indefensible lies at him, refusing even to use his name.

I urge you to watch these videos because how each Illinois House member spoke is almost as important as what they said. But for your convenience, the transcripts of both statements are set forth below, beginning with Morrison’s. Please read it carefully, so you are able to discern whether Cassidy’s response was justifiable:

For these past several weeks, we’ve been hearing facts about women’s history month, and I’m sure that we’ll hear more facts today and this week. When we hear those words, we think about our own mothers, wives, daughters, other notable women throughout history. We objectively know what a woman is, but it’s become increasingly common now to pretend that we don’t know. This is becoming George Orwell’s 1984. It’s Newspeak. It’s gaslighting. It’s activists pounding the table to declare that two plus two equals five. And that does not make it so. Demands that society accept lies as facts in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and justice is anything but. It’s not right, compassionate, or just.

This past weekend, the NCAA allowed a man to become a national champion in women’s swimming. This action was months and years in the making, and it denied that rightful place of honor to actual female athletes, several of whom were denied being named All Americans because their place was taken by University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas. Anyone who thinks that fairness in sports competition is the only issue here is missing the point.

Months ago, teammates of Lia Thomas complained to school officials that Thomas had exposed male nudity repeatedly in their locker room. This should have been a clearcut case of indecency and harassment, but university officials ignored the women’s concerns and discomfort. “Listen to women.” In this case, hardly.

Parents in Los Alamitos, California last month sent their fifth-grade girls on a three-day overnight school science field trip. After the weekend concluded, the girls told their parents that three male counselors who identify as non-binary shared those cabin quarters with the girls for each of the nights. Schools in Illinois already have similar policies. And most parents don’t even know, nor will they be told by school officials, less they be accused of discrimination.

In several states, including California, Washington State, and even here in Illinois, hundreds of male inmates, many of whom are serving time for sexual crimes or other crimes of violence are self-declaring as female or non-binary. And they’re getting a transfer to a women’s-only facility. There’s no requirement for surgery, no requirement for hormone therapy. Even if that did make the policy less bad, any sane person realizes how outrageous this is, but the practice continues and is expanding as more individuals realize what they can get away with.

According to a press report, President Joe Biden is now reportedly planning or considering I should say an executive order modeled after the California law, which would allow federal inmates to self-identify their gender and choose between a male or female prison.

Ideas have consequences. It is a minority of vocal activists who continue to push this ideology on all levels of society, including to young school children. It’s an ideology that is at war with reality, and we must stop blindly going along.

We can and should be kind to individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria, but we can do so without completely and irrationally upending society, which is already happening at lightning speed. If we really believe in the protection of women and women’s rights, we must acknowledge the harms being done and bring a stop to this, including the silence and passive acceptance about what’s really going on.

I imagine that here in this body, and perhaps beyond this chamber, there will be some who will try to condemn me and my words, but I’d like to close with these words by columnist Selwyn Duke: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

Thank you.

Now read Cassidy’s statement:

Last week, my constituent Elise Malary was pulled out of Lake Michigan. Elise was a shining example of what we want people to do and be in our community. She was part of our community on the North Side. She was dedicated to uplifting the people that she lived and worked with every day. She is one of too many black trans women whose lives mean nothing to the man on the other side of this room. She is one of many transgendered youth who are at increased risk of suicide because of the actions of people like the man that just spoke.

We are watching around the country as right-wing politicians take aim at trans youth and their families picking on the least of these. I’ve watched for years as my colleague has tormented trans youth in his community. And the brave young woman who stood up to that behavior is now my constituent as well. And to every trans youth out there listening,  to every parent who loves and affirms their children as God gave them to them, that’s not happening here in Illinois.

We will not follow in the footsteps of states that are tormenting these families and driving them away. We will embrace our youth. We will protect our youth and we will work together to solve the epidemic of murders and suicides among trans women in our community because we actually love and care for people as God made them. I don’t want to hear any more hate speech on this floor, not from anyone. And if we can only do one thing to honor Elise Malary’s memory, it’s to do that. Hate speech does not belong on this floor, not now, not ever.

For those who don’t know, “Elise” Malary, was a 31-year-old man who identified as a woman. He was not—as Cassidy implied—a “youth.” His age doesn’t make his death less tragic. Rather, his age reveals how misleading and manipulative Cassidy is.

To summarize, Morrison believes it is unjust for women to lose sports awards and records to biological men. He believes it is unjust for adult men to room with young girls. And he believes it is unjust for female prisoners to be housed with male criminals.

So too do feminists from the other side of the political aisle, including the Women’s Liberation Front, Naomi Wolf, Kara Dansky, the Women’s Declaration International, and J.K. Rowling. In Cassidy’s view, are all these left-leaning feminists—including many lesbians—guilty of hate speech for expressing their belief that sex-based rights exist and that denial of them is unjust? Does defending the sex-based rights of girls and women constitute the tormenting of gender-dysphoric boys in Cassidy’s distorted view?

I have seen and heard a lot of repugnant things spewed by the unscrupulous demagogue Cassidy, but nothing as repugnant as her exploitation of a tragic death to smear of one of Illinois’ finest public servants. In her vitriolic diatribe, she trembled with unrighteous rage as she falsely accuses Morrison of not caring about the death of a “black trans youth.” What is her evidence for this allegation?

What evidence did Cassidy provide for her malignant claim that Morrison doesn’t care about the deaths of “trans”-identifying youth or that his words about the reality and meaning of objective, immutable biological sex causes the suicide of “trans”-identifying youth?

What is Cassidy’s evidence that Morrison hates and “torments” trans people? What is her evidence that Morrison (or the millions of men and women who share his beliefs on gender dysphoria) hates those who identify as “trans”? Does Cassidy hate everyone who believes differently than she does on gender, sex, and “sexual orientation”? If so, then she must hate a huge swath of people, including many Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

What is her evidence that God “made” gender dysphoria? Did God make Minor Attraction? Zoophilia? Genetic Sexual Attraction? Did God make body dysmorphia? Did God make schizophrenia? Did God make cleft palate or spinal bifida? Or does God make humans in a world corrupted by the fall that results in disordered bodies, minds, and hearts?

In Cassidy’s view, does “loving and caring for others just the way God made them” include loving and caring for Christians just the way God made them? Does such love demand she affirm all their desires, beliefs, and actions? Does caring for and loving pedophiles or hebephiles require affirming their feelings and identities?

Is Cassidy aware that many in the medical and mental health communities believe that gender dysphoria and “trans”-identification may be symptoms—like depression and anxiety—of underlying causes, including autism, trauma, abuse, and psychosocial experiences?

Is she aware that hospitals in Sweden and the UK have stopped providing hormonal “treatment” to minors? Are they hateful? Should they be prohibited from speaking? While children and teens with gender dysphoria need compassion and treatment, the disputed question is what kind of treatment is best. Disagreeing with Cassidy on the best path forward does not constitute hatred of gender-dysphoric youth.

Cassidy concludes with an astonishing display of arrogance. Cassidy arrogates to herself the right to define “hate speech” and then arrogates to herself the right to ban it from the House floor? Unbelievable hubris.

Word to Cassidy, Christians think her assumptions about gender, sex, and “sexual orientation” are false and destructive. Many Christians feel uncomfortable and even marginalized by what they view as her hate speech and her attempts to silence dissent. They find her words as intolerant and bigoted as she finds the words of Rep. Morrison.

Why did no Republicans respond to Cassidy’s intemperate, uncivil, indefensible statement? Are there no Republicans with the integrity and courage to speak publicly as Morrison did on this issue of profound importance? Are there no Republicans willing to call for Cassidy to be censured?

Republicans who said nothing following Cassidy’s calumny should be ashamed.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Kelly-Cassidy-Hits-New-Ethical-Low.mp3

In the past three days, Twitter has suspended the accounts of the well-known satirical website Babylon Bee and of Division I swimmer Reka Gyorgy. What Gyorgy and Babylon Bee share in common is a willingness to criticize the alchemical superstitions of the “trans” cult.

Babylon Bee mocked USA Today for giving the Woman of the Year award to assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Richard Leland Levine, alias “Rachel” Levine, who is a man. In response to USA Today’s insulting award, Babylon Bee tweeted that it had awarded Levine its Man of the Year award. Twitter suspended Babylon Bee’s account for alleged “hateful conduct,” a suspension that will be lifted only when Babylon Bee deletes the tweet.

And the left claims they hate censorship.

Former Olympic swimmer and current Virginia Tech swimmer, Reka Gyorgy sent a letter to the NCAA and tweeted about the injustice of having to compete against a biological male—also known as a man—which cost Gyorgy a chance to swim the 500 freestyle in the NCAA finals. Gyorgy tweeted,

My finals spot was stolen by Lia Thomas, who is a biological male. Until we all refuse to compete nothing will change. Thanks for all the support retweets and follows. I won’t stop fighting.

Christian obligations

Christians should stand publicly with those who are leading the way on this transgressive nonsense, like Reka Gyorgy, Babylon Bee, and this father and mother of a female NCAA swimmer:

Princeton University law professor Robert P. George recently urged those who reject the assumptions on which the “trans” ideology is built to live with integrity:

When you’re pressed to state or list your pronouns, you’re being asked to sign up for a practice with certain ideological presuppositions. It is not, and cannot be, a simple matter of politesse. If you believe in the ideology, and don’t mind being pressed to express your loyalty to its tenets, then, by all means, be my guest. But if you don’t believe it, or if you believe it but object as a matter of principle to being pressured to make public affirmations of beliefs, then stand by your principles and don’t sign onto the practice. The key things, either way, are to recognize what’s going on and have the integrity—and courage—to stick to your principles.

If theologically orthodox Christians believe their beliefs are true, then they should act like it.

Christian failures

The courage of these parents raises the question, why aren’t all Christian parents of high school and collegiate athletes saying publicly what these parents said?

There are two reasons that account for the refusal of so many Christians to speak truth. First, many Christians refuse to stand for truth in the public square unless they are guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. But that is not what Christ promises those who follow him. He promises that the Christian walk will be costly. He promises that Christians will be mocked and hated just as he was.

While Christians claim to admire men and women who have stood steadfastly and suffered grievously for the faith even to the point of martyrdom, many Christians teach their children by word and deed to flee from even the mildest form of persecution. Say and do nothing that will tarnish a reputation, cost a job promotion, or lose a friend.

According to the leftist, “whose truth?” crowd, there is no objective truth—oh, except every moral belief they hold. THOSE beliefs—the source of which is their reservoir of deep feelings—are absolute, objective, transcendent, eternal moral truths, disagreement with which leftists believe should cost you your reputation, your ability to earn a living, and friendships.

In a sermon series on Romans and preached over fifty years ago, Pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones identified the second reason for Christian silence in the face of evil, a problem that has only grown since he preached about it:

Christian people are mistaking natural qualities, niceness, a cultural veneer or politeness, for true Christian grace. … How often today is affability mistaken for saintliness! “What a gracious man he is,” they say. What they really mean is this: he never criticizes, and he agrees with everybody and everything. I know of nothing more dangerous than that. … Affability is not saintliness. … We are now judging only by our own subjective feelings, by our impressions and reactions. Is there anything so dangerous?

Real love, as opposed to some saccharine, ever-affirming substitute—requires first knowing what is true.

The danger of judging only by our own subjective feelings is nowhere more obvious than in the “trans” cult. “Trans”-activists in thrall to the delusional and dangerous idea that authentic identity is constituted solely by each person’s subjective feelings are destroying lives and necessary institutions and conventions.

Will Thomas, alias “Lia,” has likely been convinced by the “trans” cult that what he’s doing is brave and important. He’s likely been convinced that he will go down in history as a much beloved hero—the Rosa Parks of the “trans rights” movement. Someone should tell Thomas that “trans” cultists don’t care about him. They don’t care about anyone or anything other than their narcissistic, solipsistic, perverse desires.

They don’t care that Thomas will lose most of his swimming buddies because men know that he is stealing places and records from women.

“Trans”-cultists don’t care about the sad life Thomas will lead going forward.

They don’t care about the young women who will not want to date a cross-dressing man.

They don’t care about all the young women who after spending a decade swimming four hours a day all year long, had this year of collegiate swimming ruined.

They don’t care about the feelings of all the women whose locker rooms were invaded by a man who openly undressed in front of them this swim season.

And “trans”-cultists certainly don’t care about Will Thomas’ eternal life.

While “authenticity” for Thomas and Levine centers on their disordered subjective desires and their rejection of material reality, for other people authenticity centers on acceptance of biological reality and biblical truth—including the importance of not bearing false witness. For those people, denying God’s creation of males and females and bearing false witness by using false pronouns are acts of rebellion against God. For those people, such dishonorable acts are profoundly harmful and unloving acts.

Those who claim to revere diversity, equity, inclusivity, tolerance, freedom, and authenticity should be first in line to defend the right of conservative Christians to live authentically Christian lives.

The “trans”-gender house is built on a sandy foundation of faulty assumptions, delusions, biased pseudoscience, and bald-faced lies, all of which are propped up by buckets of ducats from the likes of the Pritzker family, the Stryker family, Tim Gill, and “Martine” Rothblatt and by the suppression of speech. It’s an ugly evil project that is destroying bodies, minds, souls, families, churches, schools, the practice of medicine, institutions related to lawmaking, speech rights, and religious liberty. Who could possibly be behind a project of such scope and enormity?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gender-Pretenders-Destroying-Authenticity-and-Liberty-94.mp3

The founding of higher education in America was almost entirely Christian, to the point that, even by 1881, “80 percent of the colleges in the United States were church related and private.” As one Christian author pointed out, “106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose.”

Yet an op-ed published in USA Today has called for the NCAA to ban Oral Roberts University because of its biblically-based, Christian standards. What an example of bigotry and intolerance, not to mention an anti-American spirit – and I mean the op-ed, not ORU.

According to sports columnist Hemal Jhaveri, as ORU made a surprising run in the annual NCAA men’s basketball tourney, “the university’s deeply bigoted anti-LGBTQ+ polices can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.”

Put another way, ORU’s Christian views shouldn’t be ignored. Yes, Jhaveri tells us,

“Twice in their student handbook, Oral Roberts specifically prohibits homosexuality. In their student conduct section, under the heading of Personal Behavior, the school expressly condemns homosexuality, mentioning it in the same breath as ‘occult practices.’”

How horrific and unthinkable. A Christian university founded by Oral Roberts holds to Christian values. A Christian university that bases its code of conduct on the Bible holds to biblical values.

Oh, the bigotry. ORU should be banned!

Yes, this is the thought process of Jhaveri, who is so shocked by ORU’s code of conduct that she quotes an entire section verbatim:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, honesty, modesty and morality…Certain behaviors are expressly prohibited in Scripture and therefore should be avoided by members of the University community. They include theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, backbiting, profanity, vulgarity (including crude language), sexual promiscuity (including adultery, any homosexual behavior, premarital sex), drunkenness, immodesty of dress and occult practices.

How about we quote the words of the apostle Paul directly – the words of the Bible? Paul wrote, “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Jhaveri’s problem is with Scripture, not with ORU. And Jhaveri, through the vehicle of USA Today, is, by implication, calling for the NCAA to ban any university that honors Scripture.

Think about that for a moment. And think about what the Christian founders of Harvard and Yale and Princeton and a host of other major universities would have felt had they known what would happen to their beloved schools.

One of the original rules of conduct at Harvard stated:

“Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” And, “Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day . . . .”

Now, a sports columnist writing for a national publication wants the NCAA to ban a university from competition because it honors the Scriptures. Is it any wonder that America is so morally and spiritual confused today? When it comes to sexual mores, our fall has been precipitous. Jhaveri writes,

“As a private university and under the banner of fundamentalist Christian beliefs, the school is free to impose whatever standards of behavior they see fit, even if those standards are wildly out of line with modern society and the basic values of human decency. Now, as Oral Roberts gains national attention, the focus shouldn’t just be on their very good men’s basketball team, but on their prejudiced teachings and moral regressiveness.

“That Oral Roberts wants to keep its students tied to toxic notions of fundamentalism that fetishize chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines is a larger cultural issue that can be debated. What is not up for debate however is their anti-LGBTQ+ stance, which is nothing short of discriminatory and should expressly be condemned by the NCAA.”

In point of fact, USA Today should be ashamed of itself for providing a platform for such bigoted, anti-Christian, Bible-mocking commentary.

The truth is that ORU is not “fetishiz[ing] chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines.” Rather, in a sea of immorality and promiscuity and immodesty, ORU is simply calling for decency and modesty and integrity.

The university also recognizes that – perish the thought – marriage is the union of a man and a woman. But for Jhaveri, this too, is an example of religious fanaticism. She writes, “as part of their honor code, the university requires students to abide by a pledge saying that they will not engage in ‘homosexual activity,’ and that they will not be united in marriage other ‘than the marriage between one man and one woman.’”

Oh, the horror. A Christian university honoring marriage. Ban them!

Sadly, Jhaveri, with the help of USA Today, is guilty of glorifying anti-Christian, Bible-mocking, morality-twisting bigotry, thereby spreading hatred and narrow-mindedness rather than tolerance and grace. A Christian university should not be penalized for being Christian. As for those who disapprove of those standards, there are hundreds of others schools to attend.

In response, then, to this ill-conceived editorial, Christian schools should be strongly encouraged to reinforce (and/or return to) their Christian roots, ORU should be applauded for standing strong, and USA Today should be challenged for giving place to such Bible-bashing bigotry.

Having said that, let the young people compete and have fun. Jhaveri’s editorial should not be allowed to detract from the moment – or from ORU’s unlikely run so far.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

The New Rules of the Secular Left

The vast high-velocity moral revolution that is reshaping modern cultures at warp speed is leaving almost no aspect of the culture untouched and untransformed. The advocates of same-sex marriage and the more comprehensive goals of the LGBT movement assured the nation that nothing would be fundamentally changed if people of the same gender were allowed to marry one another. We knew that could not be true, and now the entire nation knows.

The latest Ground Zero for the moral revolution is the state of Indiana, where legislators passed a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence then signed into law. The controversy that followed was a free-for-all of misrepresentation and political posturing. Within days, the governor capitulated to the controversy by calling for a revision of the law — a revision that may well make the RFRA a force for weakening religious liberty in Indiana, rather than for strengthening it.

Business, political, and civic leaders piled on in a mass act of political posturing. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in 1993 in a mass act of bipartisan cooperation. The Act passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 affirmative votes in the U.S. Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, celebrating the Act as a much needed protection of religious liberty. Clinton called religious liberty the nation’s “first freedom” and went on to state: “We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

But, that was then. Indiana is now.

Hillary Clinton, ready to launch her campaign for President, condemned the law as dangerous and discriminatory — even though the law in its federal form has not led to any such discrimination. Apple CEO Tim Cook took to the pages of The Washington Post to declare that the Indiana law “would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.” For its part,The Washington Post published an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board condemned a proposed RFRA in the state of Georgia because the law would prevent the state government “from infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so.”

So, The Washington Post believes that a state should be able to infringe on a citizen’s religious liberty without a compelling interest? That is the only conclusion a reader can draw from the editorial.

The piling on continued when the governor of Connecticut, Dannel Mulloy announced that he would even forbid travel to Indiana by state officials, conveniently forgetting to mention that his own state has a similar law, as does the federal government. The NCAA piled on, as did a host of sports figures from across the country. More than one pundit pointed to the irony of the NCAA trying to posture on a question of sexual morality, but the pile-on continued.

Law professor Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University stated the truth plainly when he said: “The reaction to this law is startling in terms of its breadth–and to my mind–the extent to which the reaction is uninformed by the actual content of the law.” Similarly, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a proponent of gay marriage, stated: “The hysteria over this law is so unjustified.” He continued: “It’s not about discriminating against gays in general or across the board . . . it’s about not being involved in a ceremony that you believe is inherently religious.”

Nevertheless, the real issue here is not the RFRA in Indiana, or Arkansas, or another state. The real issue is the fact that the secular Left has decided that religious liberty must now be reduced, redefined or relegated to a back seat in the culture.

The evidence for this massive and dangerous shift is mounting.

One key indicator is found in the editorial pages of The New York Times. That influential paper has appointed itself the guardian of civil liberties, and it has championed LGBT causes for decades now. But the paper’s editorial board condemned the Indiana law as “cover for bigotry.” The most chilling statement in the editorial, however, was this:

“The freedom to exercise one’s religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.”

There you see religious liberty cut down to freedom of worship. The freedom to worship is most surely part of what religious liberty protects, but religious liberty is not limited to what happens in a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue.

That editorial represents religious liberty redefined before our eyes.

But the clearest evidence of the eagerness of the secular Left to reduce and redefine religious liberty comes in the form of two columns by opinion writer Frank Bruni. The first, published in January, included Bruni’s assurance that he affirmed “the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes, and hearts.” Religious liberty is now redefined so that it has no place outside pews, homes, and hearts. Religious liberty no longer has any public significance.

But Bruni does not really affirm religious liberty, even in churches and in the hiring of ministers. He wrote: “And churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”

The ability of churches to hire and fire ministers as they wish is “questionable.” Remember that line when you are told that your church is promised “freedom of worship.”

But Bruni’s January column was merely a prelude to what came in the aftermath of the Indiana controversy. Now, the openly-gay columnist demands that Christianity reform its doctrines as well.

He opened his column in the paper’s edition published Easter Sunday with this:

“The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision. They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will.”

Bruni issued an open demand that evangelical Christians to get over believing that homosexuality is a sin, or suffer the consequences. His language could not be more chilling:

“So our debate about religious liberty should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

There you have it — a demand that religious liberty be debated (much less respected) only if conservative believers will get with the program and, mark his language, bow to the demands of the modern age.

Christianity and homosexuality “don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni declared.

He reduced religious conviction to a matter of choice:

“But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”

So the only religion Bruni respects is one that capitulates to the modern age and is found “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

That means giving up the inerrancy of Scripture, for one thing. The Bible, according to Bruni, reflects the biases and blind spots of the human authors and their times. When it comes to homosexuality, he insists, we now know better.

This is the anthem of liberal Protestantism, and the so-called mainline Protestant churches have been devoted to this project for the better part of a century now. Bruni applauds the liberal churches for getting with the program and for revising the faith in light of the demands of the modern age — demands that started with the denial of truths such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles, the verbal inspiration of Scripture, and other vital doctrines. The liberal churches capitulated on the sexuality issues only after capitulating on a host of central Christian doctrines. Almost nothing is left for them to deny or reformulate.

It is interesting to see how quickly some can get with the program and earn the respect of the secular gatekeepers. Bruni cites David Gushee of Mercer University as an example of one who has seen the light. “Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” Bruni quotes Gushee. Bruni then stated that Gushee “openly challenges his faith’s censure of same-sex relationships, to which he no longer subscribes.”

But David Gushee agreed with the church’s historic condemnation of same-sex relationships, even in a major work on Christian ethics he co-authored, until he released a book stating otherwise just months ago. Once a public figure gets with the program, whether that person is David Gushee or Barack Obama, all is quickly forgiven.

Bruni also notes that “Christians have moved far beyond Scripture when it comes to gender roles.” He is right to understand that some Christians have indeed done so, and in so doing they have made it very difficult to stop with redefining the Bible on gender roles. Once that is done, there is every reason to expect that a revisionist reading of sexuality is close behind. Bruni knows this, and celebrates it.

Taken together, Frank Bruni’s two columns represent a full-throttle demand for theological capitulation and a fully developed reduction of religious liberty. In his view, stated now in full public view in the pages ofThe New York Times, the only faiths that deserve religious liberty are those that bow their knees to the ever most costly demands of the modern age.

It is incredibly revealing that the verb he chose was “bowing.” One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar and to Christ. We must choose one or the other. Frank Bruni, whether he intended to do so or not, helps us to see that truth with new clarity.

Sources:

Frank Bruni, “Your God and My Dignity,” The New York Times, Sunday, January 11, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html

Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana,” The New York Times, Sunday, April 5, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com website.