Domestic Religious Liberty


June 16, 2015

Union Theological Seminary Rips RFRA Laws

On June 10th, 2015 Union Theological Seminary (UTS) hosted their 2nd Union on the Hill Program, in which they discussed the alleged “immorality of overly broad state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts [RFRAs].” So what new insights did this panel of religious leftists bring to the table?

Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President of UTS, claimed that progressives accept the concept of religious freedom. However, they are against the use of said freedom to discriminate against the LGBT community, as was done with the RFRA laws in Indiana and Arkansas. She went so far as to invoke Iran as an example of what happens when religion is able to eclipse rights. Despite this outrageous comparison, she argued that both religion and rights have moral foundations and don’t have to consume each other.

Michele Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress of the Center for American Progress provided a legal perspective of the RFRA controversy. She claimed that the United States always balanced the right to worship against the right not to be coerced. The Hobby Lobby decision disturbed the balance by giving for-profit corporations religious freedom for the first time. The implications of this reach even beyond “marriage equality” and “reproductive justice.” She also stressed that the original intent of RFRA was to protect religious minorities whose voice was not heard in the majority religion. The current RFRA laws, however, are attempts to impose religious beliefs upon others.

Congressman André Carson of Indiana repeated the complaint that RFRA laws are attempts to expand national profiling. His solution was that the faith community find common themes among their religions. He believes the golden rule meets this criterion.

Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first congressman of Muslim faith, accused the political right of favoring a nation of discrimination. He also claimed that there are people of every faith, including his own, who use religion to promote what he called their “hateful” anti-gay sentiments. Finally, he contended our founders understood religious freedom to mean that the government would be unable to abuse religion.

Rev. Frederick Davie, the openly married homosexual executive Vice President of Union Theological seminary, predictably railed against RFRA as oppressive and compared it to the way racists utilized religion to fight desegregation back in the Civil Rights Era. He claimed that religious exemptions are acceptable if they don’t deny basic services in the public places on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. He also applauded Tony Campolo, who he labeled a “conservative evangelical,” for changing his mind and deciding to approve of homosexuality.

Sally Steenland, Director of the Center For American Progress’ Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, provided the most illuminating take on “progressive Christian” convictions. She claimed that progressives should not reject religious freedom, but frame it in a manner that is compatible with abortion and gay rights. This is different, she said, from the conservative vision of religious freedom which translates into imposing beliefs on others. Furthermore, she insists that religious exemptions are not always a bad thing; they are only illegitimate if they bring harm to others. For example, a Jewish prisoner being served kosher food is permitted, as it harms no one. However, the Hobby Lobby decision, which granted corporations religious exemption from contraceptive funding mandate, brings harm by making the workers pick up the financial slack and should be opposed. In addition to denying that clergy will ever be forced to participate in a gay wedding on pain of imprisonment, Steenland urged progressive Christians to dispute the cries of persecution from the right. Steenland’s most important contribution was her professed agreement with her theological opponent Rick Warren when he said that the winner of the religious freedom debate will be the winner of everything else.

In the end, the UTS played the same tired, false tunes: the LGBT community is suffering the same discrimination as African Americans did, religious freedom is only permissible in the manner that they define it, and the current RFRA laws are attempts by the right to cloak their discrimination against minorities, denial of “reproductive justice” and imposition of their views upon others.

Each of these premises are easily refuted. African Americans were discriminated on account of their race, something they have no control over. The so-called LGBT community is being shunned for their behavior, which they can control.

Their conception of religious freedom is equally problematic. They claim that religious freedom ends when hurting others begins. However, they define “hurting others” so broadly that it causes religious freedom to bow to knee to things it was never meant to yield to, such as the onslaught of radical sexual activists. According to Joseph Story, a contemporary of the founding fathers and author of the Commentaries on The Constitution of the United States, the purpose of the first amendment’s establishment clause was “not to countenance, much less to advance [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” Furthermore, statutory punishments for deviant sexuality were common in the founding era. When it came to a choice between gay/abortion rights and religious rights the founding fathers clearly sided with the latter.

In light of these observations, the final theme of the UTS event falls apart. Not only are RFRA laws not tools of discrimination or obstacles to non-existent abortion rights, but the UTS is guilty of hypocrisy. Their very rage at conservative Christians for imposing their values on others is itself an imposition of values.

The question is not if values be imposed, but whose values will be imposed.

To paraphrase Steenland, the values that prevail on religious freedom will be imposed on everything else.

9 Responses to Union Theological Seminary Rips RFRA Laws

  1. Namyriah says:

    Seminary students who hate Christians.

    Since they hate Christianity so much, let them concoct a Plan B for their future careers, because people like them – faux Christians detesting Christianity – have caused the plummeting of memberships in the ACLU churches.

    People entering the ministry with the mission of destroying Christianity. This would be funny if it were not so disgusting.

    • MarcoPolo says:

      The decline of Christian churches is indicative of the reality that many people are pondering the dichotomies that the Church promulgates as Liturgical, rather than recognizing the Human side of Life and dealing with the realities that face everyone, everyday.

      I truly don’t think it is the intentions of any of these young seminarians, to destroy Christianity. Perhaps to pull them out of the Dark Ages, but not at the price of destroying a well founded, and well funded Religion.

      • 1no Yamanaka says:

        “many people are pondering the dichotomies that the Church promulgates as Liturgical.”
        That makes NO SENSE at all. Do you ever think before posting?

        • MarcoPolo says:

          I’m sorry if my point was lost in translation for you.
          Liturgy: The customary worship by specific religious group, according to it’s particular beliefs, customs and traditions.

          I’m saying, that the Church is alienating people for reasons that are ridiculously dogmatic, while ignoring the compassionate side of being Human.

  2. Palamas says:

    So much idiocy, so much misinformation, so much totalitarianism…so little time.

  3. Sean says:

    Hmm, the two Muslim members of Congress oppose legislation in favor of religious freedom. They know darn well that the only victims of religious bigotry in America right now are Christians, not Muslims, so what do they care if Christians get fined or dragged into court? Zero chance of any gay couple targeting a Muslim business.

  4. MarcoPolo says:

    I must immediately take you to task Mr. Ballas!

    You state that the plight of LGBT individuals cannot be equated to the African Americans of the Civil Rights era because LGBT people can “…control their behavior.”
    What the Hell?! This is not behavior we’re talking about, it’s people’s lives, and their respective rights as Americans!

    We’ll just have to see what the Supreme Court has to say about this whole subject. They obviously got it wrong with Hobby Lobby.

  5. Tom says:

    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” –Matthew 7:15-16

  6. Jesus came to get rid of these Rabbis in Dog-Collars and you have got them in one form or the other to fulfil Matt. 12v43-45, what do you expect? They are greater hypocrites than before the arrival of Jesus. Jesus threw Judas Iscariot out at the Last Supper for he was a Thief stealing money from the Purse. People donate money at Churches; this Dog-Collared Priest dips his hand into the donations as his salary. No wonder a retired Vicar when addressed as a Vicar by the BBC presenter Nicky Campbell objected strongly and told him that he is no more a Vicar like a Policeman in uniform. All the life he was serving Mammon with a Dog-Collar making fools of the people that he is a man of God. In God, we have Royal Priests and they enjoy Fellowships.

    If you study the present organisations of the Churches, they are based upon the Synagogues; some are Pharisees and the others more than Sadducees. At, the times of Jesus, these Blind Rabbis had two or three divisions and today in Jesus, more than 300 Cults when Jesus proclaimed One Fold, Church of God, headed by One Shepherd Christ Jesus, our Bridegroom.

    These Churches are like blind men defining an elephant and their Dog-Collared hireling Priests are the most happy job satisfaction people fleecing the devotees of Jesus called turning stones, simple-minded people, into Bread and Butter.


    Luke 16v16: Law and Prophets were till John, the Baptist whilst lowest in the Royal Kingdom of God, a Saint, is greater than John, the Baptist, also known as the Angel of Israel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *