What's Wrong with "Religious Freedom": Vortex et al

We’re in the middle of the “Fortnight For Freedom”…but I’m having trouble – as I did last year – getting excited about this effort. I have some problems with the concept of “religious freedom”.

Michael Voris put words to my concerns very nicely in the June 2 Vortex episode, which is embedded below, with its full script. To whet your appetite, here’s MV’s opening statement (my emphases):

The topic of religious liberty is all the rage in some Catholic circles these days. And too many Catholics, we’re afraid, are using this legally annunciated principle and a defense for theological teachings. That’s a loser before you even get out of the gates.

Think about it. What is religious liberty when applied to a society? It is, at its core, the view that all religions have a right to be followed and not interfered with by the government. Pretty noble sounding until you break it down. There are certain assumptions hidden in this understanding – the first being that all religions are WORTHY of being followed and have a RIGHT to preach their beliefs in the public square – whether they are truthful or not.

This brings all religions onto more or less the same equal level in terms of the state’s relationship to them. But this approach is not being followed out to its logical conclusion. Religious liberty is a phony liberty because it will eventually imprison all moral views except the majority view.

I’ve written about religious freedom elsewhere on this blog. In January 2012 (“Freedom? Conscience? Truth!”), I wrote

Caesar wants his pinch of incense

When we make it all about freedom of religion, though, we open another can of worms…not that the can isn’t already open. We open the door to all kinds of “religions” whose adherents then demand certain rights and recognitions – like homosexual “marriage” and the “right” not to have to view a Nativity scene on public property during the Christmas season and the right to abortion and contraception. Again, Dignitatis Humanae does address this problem by calling for religious freedom “within due limits”, and “as long as the just requirements of public order are observed”. But it’s pretty clear that these limits have gone by the wayside in our society; they are not being observed.

I don’t think these things up all by myself…I’m not that smart. I read what other people write, and think about it, and try to put it all together so it makes some sense to my own little mind; then I share it with you. In another January 2012 post (“War on Conscience or War on Truth?”), I quoted Dr. Christian Brugger, who wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation article (my emphases):

“Yes, there is a lot of anger over Obama's radically illiberal policy. But that anger is only rightly felt if it concerns the violation, not of legal or even constitutional rights, but the violation of truth. We need to stand up and say confidently and resolutely to Kathleen Sebelius, her thugs at HHS and her puppet-master in the White House: Your view is false and untrue; it radically violates human good and is destructive of communal integrity.”

You see, when we hang onto this whole “religious freedom” notion, we stop preaching the Truth. We are only saying that we are entitled to believe what we believe, and act accordingly. But “religious freedom” means, essentially, that adherents of every other “religion” are entitled to believe what they believe…and act accordingly. Somewhere along the line, there will inevitably be conflicts about “acting accordingly”, because there are conflicts between religions.

There can be only one Truth, but the idea of religious freedom denies that fact.  As Michael Voris says in the Vortex episode below:

So if Catholics and Muslims and Hindus each have their own set of truths, which contradict each other – which they do – then the very concept of truth itself cannot be appealed to in any circumstance.

Precisely because of the foundational principles underlying the political dogma of religious liberty, then ultimately, objective truth MUST be denied. If all “truths” have a place at the table, then no one of them is superior.

Fighting for “religious freedom” then, is not going to help the Church. What is needed is a fight for the Truth. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI told the US bishops at their ad limina visit in 2012 (my emphases):

…[The Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning.

Benedict XVI went on to address the notion of “religious freedom”, but noted the concern about

… a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

That’s right. And as MV notes with regard to the history of the Pantheon in Rome:

All the gods are just as acceptable as all the other gods… so multiple statutes to various gods stood in this temple. So come worship whatever god you wanted. And that’s exactly what people did. Ah, but there was some fine print. You could worship whatever god or gods you desired, so long as you ALSO bowed down before the god of Rome and offered a pinch of incense to Caesar.

And if we continue to fight for “religious freedom”, we’ll get “freedom of worship” instead; and if we settle for that, then we – the Church – ends up offering incense to Caesar.

What is the solution? Well, MV and the Pope Emeritus agree on this point! Benedict XVI, in that same ad limina address to the US bishops said:

Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.

I really think that he was saying we need to stand up, not so much for “religious freedom” as for the Truth.

Here’s the Vortex from June 28:

The script:

I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Rome – specifically in front of the Pantheon, a 1st century temple to all the gods of the Roman Empire. It’s a good place to examine the things of the present and the future – this temple from the past.

The topic of religious liberty is all the rage in some Catholic circles these days. And too many Catholics, we’re afraid, are using this legally annunciated principle and a defense

for theological teachings. That’s a loser before you even get out of the gates.

Think about it. What is religious liberty when applied to a society? It is, at its core, the view that all religions have a right to be followed and not interfered with by the government. Pretty noble sounding until you break it down. There are certain assumption hidden in this understanding – the first being that all religions are WORTHY of being followed and have a RIGHT to preach their beliefs in the public square – whether they are truthful or not.

This brings all religions onto more or less the same equal level in terms of the state’s relationship to them. But this approach is not being followed out to its logical conclusion.

Religious liberty is a phony liberty because it will eventually imprison all moral views except the majority view. Religion deals with the notion of truth. Yet various religions automatically admits of various truths.

Catholics and Muslims don’t accept the same truths – and the question of whether we worship the same God or not, from an objective viewpoint, is beside the point. We don’t ascribe the same truths to Him and that’s what’s important – and why it is extremely disingenuous and gilding the lily to just blurt out we worship the same God, and leave it at that. Talk about a confusing and misleading statement.

So if Catholics and Muslims and Hindus each have their own set of truths, which contradict each other – which they do – then the very concept of truth itself cannot be appealed to in any circumstance.

Precisely because of the foundational principles underlying the political dogma of religious liberty, then ultimately, objective truth MUST be denied. If all “truths” have a place at the table, then no one of them is superior. That was the whole point of this temple – The Pantheon.

All the gods are just as acceptable as all the other gods… so multiple statutes to various gods stood in this temple. So come worship whatever god you wanted. And that’s exactly what people did. Ah, but there was some fine print. You could worship whatever god or gods you desired, so long as you ALSO bowed down before the god of Rome and offered a pinch of incense to Caesar.

See, the state always has an interest in religion, and will set itself up as superior every chance it gets. The state – which ultimately means the majority – is the one, after all, that defines religious liberty: what it is, how far it can go, and so forth. No state will long make its appeal to reason, but to its own self-interests for its own self-preservation. This is why the current outcry about religious liberty is a foolish tactic. It is guaranteed to fail.

The state is the arbiter of religious liberty by virtue of religious liberty. Majority rules, and that’s that. The United States was erected on the Enlightenment principles of individual liberties – religious liberty among them.

But among those liberties is the right to self-determination. In the 1992 Supreme Court ruling Casey Vs. Planned Parenthood, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority

Opinion: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Where do you go with that? And when you apply it to religions, it’s lights out – in particular [for] Catholicism. That is a terribly anti-Catholic statement out of the mouth of a Catholic, no less.

At the heart of liberty is not the “right” to define your own concept of anything – but rather the “right” to freely embrace THE TRUTH.

The problem here is that there is no recognition of objective truth, so how can religious liberty be appealed to as though it were some moral absolute? It isn’t. Religious liberty is what at least five US Supreme Court justices say it is and nothing else. This is very much akin to the high court earlier this week paving the way for same-sex marriage by striking down key elements of DOMA. It is the logical conclusion of a view of self-determination.

And it is EXACTLY what we predicted would happen – not that it took a prophet to see the signs of THESE times…but it does take an idiot to ignore them.

Religious liberty is a canard because the moment Catholic teaching or sensibilities come into conflict with the larger society, the Church will lose, simply because it is viewed as just one religion among many.

And if it accepts the position of being just one of the statues in the pantheon of the gods, which it has done in America for quite some time in many cases, then its leaders will HAVE to offer some incense to the gods of Rome.

The American Patriotic Church will go the way of all religions in America because it has begged and pleaded for more than a century for a place at the table of religious pluralism, and soon, it will discover, it’s about to get its deserts.

Religious liberty – however noble it MAY sound – always devolves to the state crushing the true religion underfoot.

Coming to you from the temple of all the gods tolerated by the state, but where the gods of the state reigned supreme, this is Michael Voris for ChurchMilitant.TV.