Challenges to religious freedom which attack Judeo-Christian morality in the name of moral autonomy continue in the West. The objective of making state-defined morality into a permanent regime remains in the sights of its advocates. Those who would defend religious freedom and liberty of conscience must be vigilant and continue to respond to attacks, as well as endeavor to recover lost ground.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International gathered a panel of experts to discuss the continuing effort to restrict the freedom of traditional religions in the West at the International Religious Freedom Summit in Washington on February 4. Sean Nelson, Legal Counsel for Global Religious Freedom with ADF International introduced the panel. Commenting on an opening video of three current high profile religious liberty cases in Europe he said that the defendants are perfectly respectable, law abiding citizens whose true offense was publicly expressing opposition to the prevailing doctrine of moral autonomy, in two cases involving homosexuality, and in a third involving abortion. He observed that in this regard ADF International is having to give increasing attention to the West. Although the cultural Left and the legacy news media have endeavored to deny that conscience objection against homosexuality or abortion are religious liberty issues, Nelson pointed out that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recognizes the denials of conscience objection on sexual issues as religious liberty violations.

Moral Conflict in Europe

The panel’s first speaker, Todd Huizinga, Senior Fellow for Europe of the Religious Freedom Institute observed that Western societies “arose and were sustained over the course of many centuries by a basic Judeo-Christian consensus.” Because this consensus is no longer shared by many in society, people in the West are now “diametrically” opposed to one another on such fundamental issues as “what does it mean to be human?” “What constitutes human freedom and human flourishing?” “What is the nature of truth?” In this “worldview pluralism…the restriction of the religious freedom of those who hold the traditional teachings of their faith is a growing problem.”

Through “the misuse of anti-discrimination laws,” believers are denied “the full and free exercise of their faith.” Such policies result in “increased hostility” toward religion in society at large. The focus of attack is the belief in life-long opposite-sex monogamous marriage as the proper context for a sexual relationship. This “clashes” with the progressive belief that “sexuality is subject only to human choice.” It’s held that “gender, is fluid, and that the very idea of objective truth, as espoused in most religions, is oppressive and repugnant.” This would seem to make self-will the ultimate value.

Huizinga said that “we must distinguish, much more carefully, between discrimination and disagreement…Antidiscrimination law should safeguard everyone’s rights, not just those the progressive Left deems to be vulnerable.”. Criticism or conscience objection against deviation from traditional sexual morality “does not impose a particular religious faith on anyone.” As this writer has noted before, criticism of human behavior and inclination is not an attack on persons; any civilized society requires that human behavior be subject to judgment. Huizinga said that “a relativistic” solution of the societal divide is not adequate. “Religious freedom is about the pursuit of truth,” he said. Nelson observed that relativism can incline people to self-censor (i.e., not post a particular comment, not pray in particular places, etc.).

Shrinking Religious Freedom in Canada

Next Nelson introduced Janet Epp Buckingham, a Canadian lawyer and professor who is currently Director of Global Advocacy of the World Evangelical Alliance, and advocates for religious freedom at the U.N. She observed that “Canada is much more secular” than the United States. Nevertheless, Canada does have “a long history of religious freedom.” Currently, Canada’s “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” adopted in 1982, echoes international agreements on human rights. “Freedom of conscience and religion” is the very first freedom mentioned in the charter.

However, in protecting rights, it important to recognize that “it’s all about interpretation.” She said that the very first test in court of the Charter’s guarantee of religious freedom concerned a drug store being open on Sunday, in violation of existing blue laws. The court echoed international standards, saying that religious freedom is a right “to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hinderance or reprisal, and the right to manifest beliefs by worship and practice, or by teaching and discrimination.” Buckingham observed that the court recognized “individual and collective practice of religion and protects all of it.”

Read More