Noticeably absent from next week’s inaugural ceremonies will be
evangelical pastor Louie Giglio, unceremoniously dumped from the
dais when a liberal blog unearthed a sermon from last century in
which Giglio preaches from the Bible about sex. (For a quick
primer, see
George Neumayr’s piece from Wednesday.) Under the Obama
administration such beliefs disqualify one from participation. The
situation landed like a turd on the porch of Giglio’s enormous
church, which wants no part in the debate over the meaning of
marriage. They are learning the hard way that the vanguard of the
culture war bears a rainbow colored flag. You can run, but you
can’t hide.
The Giglio fiasco represents just the latest instance of an
administration increasingly dismissive of religious voices. The
announcement one year ago of a new rule authored under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act requiring employers to subsidize
the cost of contraception for their employees, regardless of any
religious conviction that would otherwise bar them from doing so,
awakened many sleepy-eyed religious leaders to the increasing
degradation of religious freedom in American society that has been
occurring for quite some time. A slew of lawsuits and declarations
of concern came from across the religious spectrum, including the
U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and arts and crafts retailer Hobby
Lobby.
Close on the heels of the HHS mandate came the final stage of
President Obama’s evolution on the meaning marriage. He became the
first sitting president to publicly declare support for no-mother
and no-father marriage. The president stopped short of calling for
actual legislation, but did instruct the Justice Department to
cease enforcement of the duly-enacted Defense of Marriage Act,
federal law since the Clinton administration, and successfully put
an end to the military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” One
result of these actions is that military chaplains are being
pressured to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, regardless of
the teachings of their faith.
Then there was “Chik-Fil-A Day.” When it was discovered the CEO
of the popular fast-food franchise believes marriage is a good
thing, the blogosphere ignited a flurry of indignation that
included boycotts, threats from public officials, and the attempted
murder of employees at a pro-family think tank by a deranged gay
rights advocate carrying a bag full of chicken sandwiches. All of
this despite the fact that corporate policy prohibits Chik-Fil-A
employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Level-headed American citizens nationwide flocked to the nearest
Chik-Fil-A to show support for a person’s right to have an opinion.
The president offered no comment.
A principle at the center of the American founding is that the
competition of ideas in the public square is a good thing. All must
be welcome to debate and find compromise. The Obama presidency is a
shining example of the triumph of inclusion over marginalization.
From time to time, the president has articulated the value of
coming together over differences, whether regarding the ongoing
budget crisis or an incident between a white cop and a black
professor. On Wednesday, the administration even released a
proclamation declaring it Religious Freedom Day. (You may have
missed the press release.)
All of that falls flat in light of what the administration has
actually done, which is ignore religious liberty concerns and
faith-based opinions whenever they conflict with the desires of a
more favored constituency. No compromise. No willingness to tell
his own side, “It’s only a benediction, and about half the country
agrees with him, so shut up.”
Religious expression is an invaluable contribution to the public
square. It’s no coincidence that the rights to free speech, press,
assembly, and access to government are included beside the right to
free exercise of one’s faith. The values and ethics that extend
from religion have a bearing on matters of public policy. To
disassociate religion from the public square is to define faith as
nothing more than a personal activity that occurs within the
privacy of one’s church or home. This is a far cry from the
understanding of the abolitionists and civil rights leaders like
King, who understood the role of pastors in the “inescapable
network of mutuality” to which we all belong.
