The Trojan Horse of antiquity looked nice to unsuspecting onlookers, yet it carried with it fatal consequences. But such ruses also come in non-Grecian varieties, and often with even more devastating outcomes, and the phrase “Trojan Horse” has come to represent a subterfuge which appears friendly but is deadly.
Enter the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
A nice present to evangelicals. And why shouldn’t we have accepted it? After all, we should only expect the state to be wicked until the end of time (or so the thinking goes), so if they want to throw us a bone, why not raise the gate and let it in?
Not so fast.
The Act prohibits the government from burdening “a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
What does this legal jargon mean? It essentially means that Jesus Christ is not Lord.
Let me unpack that, and, in doing so, I want to make two points. One, Christians should reject the freedom of religion fallacy. And two, since we haven’t, the pro-aborts have been happy to embrace it. And why wouldn’t they? After all, we let the stupid thing in. I think we even helped design it.
The Freedom of Religion Fallacy
The idea of “Freedom of Religion” as it is used today is a bastardized version of the idea of the liberty of the Christian conscience. There is no religious freedom in the Bible. The term is a nonsense term. Freedom of religion? What in the world does that mean?
First, we need to understand what “religion” means. Religion is not merely a set of ethereal theories that remain unconnected from the reality of life. Religion is intensely practical. Thus, we see in the Bible the outworking of pagan religion: adultery, child sacrifice, sodomy, and bestiality (Leviticus 18:20-23). Wispy philosophical specters none of them.
Maybe the pagans in the land of Canaan tried the “religious freedom” argument with God: “Hey, just exercising our freedom to practice our religion over here.”
If they did, it didn’t work. God judged their iniquity and the “land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). If only they had the ACLU.
Part of the ruse is that Christians have accepted the idea that religion is a tiny part of life and does not impact all of reality. If religion is only what goes on between my ears, then “religious freedom” would make sense. But religion is more than that, and “religious freedom” does not make sense.
Let’s start with a brief look at American history. Pro-aborts love to talk about how our nation was built on the idea of “religious freedom.” Not really. At least not in the way they think of it.
The New England Puritans did not allow public blasphemy. And William Penn’s colony of Pennsylvania, the great example of religious toleration, outlawed not only the pagan religious practices of sodomy, bestiality, and adultery, but also outlawed blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ.
Even into the 19th century, well into the era of an Enlightenment-besotted America, laws were still being enforced against blasphemy. In 1810 a New York Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a man who had blasphemed and disparaged the name of Christ.
Chief Justice Kent stated: “The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, a gross violation of decency and good order.”
Seems like old Judge Kent there needs some remedial training on “religious freedom” from the modern experts. Or does he?
It appears Kent had a better understanding of religion than most evangelical leaders do today.
Religious toleration was a concept that arose within Christendom and had reference to denominational differences among followers of Christ. Thus, there was a place for the freedom of the Christian conscience in early America. The concept is a Christian doctrine and synthesizes well with the idea that the state can only punish what the Bible authorizes it to punish. But there was no freedom to practice whatever religion you wanted, in whatever way you wanted.
And why should there have been? Not all religions are created equal. Come to think of it, a better way to say it is that all created religions are equal – equally false. And the one true religion – Christianity – was not created at all, being the eternal truth about the eternal Triune God.
Most false religious practices are not allowed in a righteous society because such practices are by nature against the God of the state: Jesus Christ. But the Bible does provide safeguards and limitations here. The state is not authorized to punish you for what you believe, for example, but the sword of the state is indeed to be unsheathed against the religious practices of flagrant idolatry, sodomy, and child sacrifice.
So what is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act really saying? It is saying that humanistic law is supreme, and we will feign to allow you to do your Christian thing until it comes into conflict with the pagan god of the state.
It is easy to see where that will lead: more and more conflicts with the pagan god of the state, and less and less so-called “freedom.”
Why did we raise the gate for this monstrosity in the first place?
Quite frankly, it was because Christians were happy to relegate the entire civil sphere to the pagans, as long as they left us a tiny little place over here for our “religion.” But, as the African American spiritual puts it, Christ has “got the whole world in his hands,” and his disciples should never have negotiated with spiritual terrorists armed with pagan law. When it comes to the lordship of Christ there are no small claims. To modify the words of the southern theologian Alan Jackson, it is not at all “alright to be little bitty” when it comes to the claims of Christ.
So, Christians should have rejected the argument in 1993 and we should reject it today. The freedom of religion fallacy is erroneous because it posits something other than Christ as the highest authority in the land. I need the pagan government to grant me the “freedom” to obey the Lord of glory? If that doesn’t smell fishy, then we need to see a spiritual rhinologist.
Bad Arguments Backfire
But the gate was lowered and in lumbered the blasphemous beast of “freedom of religion.”
And now pro-aborts are coming out of its innards, or standing on it and celebrating, whichever works better for this analogy.
And the pro-aborts are quite right to use the “freedom of religion” argument. Any argument, any mechanism, any scheme, which subjugates the lordship of Jesus Christ under pagan law is always going to be used by the pagans.
Does the freedom of religion grant me the right to practice child sacrifice? According to the text of the Act, it sort of does. Or at least it doesn’t write it off. Why? Because the authority in that text is not the true religion, the authority is not Christ and His Law, the authority is who?
“A compelling governmental interest.” There it is. We have hit the pagan pay dirt.
If Christians can use the “freedom of religion” argument to broker a deal with the lord of the state, pagan Caesar, why can’t the Satan worshippers?
And that is just what the Satanic Temple is doing in New Mexico, for example. Abortion is part of their religious rituals and they claim they should have the right to practice their religion. Their main argument: religious freedom, baby (well, not for the baby, sadly).
I am not a fan of governmental acts; we already have God’s Law – the only Acts I like are found in between John and Romans. But if we are to have an act for this issue, it should have been the Freedom of the Pagan Conscience Act of 1993. And it should have read thus: “The government shall not burden a person’s exercise of their pagan religion unless such religious acts violate God’s Law applied in the civil sphere, revealed in the Old and New Testament, and the Lordship of the rightful sovereign of the state, Jesus Christ.”
Now, what’s the difference between those two acts? One is subjecting Christ to all things and the other is subjecting all things to Christ.
In summary, the pagans are correct to use the religious freedom argument. But the argument is rotten. The real problem is that Christians have embraced it. We have contented ourselves with a little bitty part of this world, when Christ told us to do the opposite. And now, behold, the fruit of Enlightenment pluralism and pietistic Christianity. Babies being butchered in the name of freedom of religion. What were Christians hoping to accomplish by making sure we can at least have our little private religion over here? We have thrown the game, my friends.
What has our coveted “religious freedom” accomplished for us? And what about our neighbor? If Christ is Lord, then serve him, if Molech is god, then serve him. But let’s have none of this freedom of religion nonsense. It is a ruse, a con, a sham, a deadly cocktail of venomous deception.
Christians need to start using good (read: biblical) arguments as we take over the world as Christ’s ambassadors (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 6:2). The freedom of religion argument is a bad argument. And the pagans know it. They mock the Christian religion and laugh at our retreatism as we fight to maintain the “freedom” to not bake a cake for perverts while granting them the premise that the Christian religion should only exist as a small exception to the state religion. It’s true – someone must be the laughingstock. But it is the pagan argumentation that merits such opprobrium. “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision” (Psalm 2:4). Let’s stop using their bad arguments. I have a better one: “Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (Psalm 2:10-12). Funny, it turns out Christ is not overly interested in the freedom of religion when it comes to the kings of the earth. We shouldn’t be either.
Chris Hume is the host of The Lancaster Patriot Podcast and the author of several books, including Seven Statist Sins. He can be reached at info@thelancasterpatriot.com.
Sorry–the founding fathers talk about the “Creator” that is because all peoples have their own God– to the Indians it was the Sun, to the Canadian eskimo it was the Raven. To others it is whatever. So do not push Jesus Christ even though you believe in him. Religion is never wrong to the believer.