There was a great article about Evangelicals and persecution complex in Raw Story. The article points out why right-wing religions are prone to persecution complex:
- Israelites were the kings of casting themselves as victims, even when they were committing genocide. Their antagonism with (and particularly from) surrounding nations gave them a pre-text for confirming God’s support for their cause. (This makes it easy to find scriptures that align with our
- It makes us feel like we are similar to a suffering savior.
Persecution complex also gives church members a sense of purpose and the ability to persevere with faith, despite challenges. It can also make it easier to rally individuals behind a cause, by identifying (or sometimes manufacturing) a common enemy.
The article also cites the problems with churches having a persecution complex:
- Often these “persecutions” are because we hit first.
- It reinforces blind spots because we don’t listen to those we’ve hurt.
- It’s self-perpetuating. We see others as victimizing us, so we can dismiss them and their “criticisms” as being “fighting righteousness,” and when they don’t like that we can believe it’s because the wicked take the truth to be hard.
- We start seeing persecution where it doesn’t exist. We are bewildered about why others see us differently than we see ourselves.
From the article:
When we cultivate the sense that we have been wronged, we can’t see the wrong that we ourselves are doing. We also give up our power to make things better. If people keep being mean to us through no fault of our own, then we’re helpless as well as victims, at least in our own minds. You can’t fix what you can’t see.
In the case of Christianity, the theology of persecution serves to give the faithful hope. It inspires persistence in the face of hardship, including the many hardships that life brings on all of us through no fault of our own. But it has also blinded generations of believers to the possibility that sometimes the hardships they face are due not to their faith or evildoers hating Jesus, but to the fact that they hit first. And sometimes the bewildering hostility they perceive may simply be something that the theology of persecution set them up to expect, whether it is there or not.
- I See
- I Think
- They See
- They Think
An example might be:
- I see employees taking too long on break.
- I think they are being lazy. I walk past a few extra times, looking pointedly at my watch.
- They see me disapproving.
- They grumble and go back to work, but then they give bad employee scores on the survey.
When you continue the same steps, you can see that it’s a self-sustaining negative loop:
- They see a boss who only pays attention to the negative. They see a boss who’s a babysitter or timekeeper.
- They don’t trust the boss who doesn’t trust them. They object to being babysat and disengage at work.
- I see them disengaging at work, and I think they are loafers.
- I treat them like untrustworthy loafers.
The coach pointed out that if you don’t question what you are seeing and try to understand what others are seeing, you continue to see the negative things you expect to see. The motives of others, and our role in creating those behaviors are hidden from us. We have to change what we think about what we see and imagine other reasons for what we see before we can allow ourselves to change our perspective which will then change how future interactions go which is what creates their perspective.
A different coach said “The person with the most awareness in the situation bears the most responsibility for how the relationship goes.” It’s another way of saying the same thing.
- Do you see yourself or others relishing a persecution complex?
- How do we break the cycle of self-proclaimed victimhood and lower these barriers?
- What evidence do you see of improvement or retrenchment when it comes to persecution complex in the church?
Discuss.
** 9 years ago I did a post exploring how much internet persecution of Mormons there was. The post is here: http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/04/08/mormon-persecution-complex/
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t know that the Israelites were the Kings of the persecution complex. The Biblical history of the Israelites is one of self-reported repeated apostasy where they lost the Lord’s protection and were allowed to be subjugated by one or the other neighboring countries.
The early Christians went from an early very real persecution to a favored status in the Roman Empire, after which they started persecuting each other.
However just blindly laying a persecution complex onto a people or group just may be a lazy way of perpetuating a myth and not dealing with the actual facts, including the chicken/egg situation.
Glenn
“….how our words are perceived by minority and disenfranchised people.” Perceptions are inconsistent and sometimes grossly mistaken. The words themselves are not a cause of tension, but who is saying them.
There are people who use all the words listed above (and worse) who get excused because “it’s part of our culture” In College Forums, a Guest who speaks against religion is perceived as a lecturer, while someone who speaks favorably of religion is perceived as a endorser and thereby not allowed.
On Sunday our Bishop announced at church that several GAs are coming to California (Rasband, being the keynote, if I remember right) to do a special, Saturday night broadcast from the Sacramento temple (to all of Calif, I think) on religious freedom. We are ‘strongly encouraged’ to attend and bring our neighbors with us. Shades of Prop 8, I’m cringing already. The thing that bugs me the most though is that nobody seems to see or care that the reason the LGBT and its allied community has such negative feelings toward the church in Calif, is because of Prop 8. We hit first. And now we are all supposed to be shocked and hurt that the religious reputation is down and they have come together to instigate/pay for court cases that may change the rights of religions. Instead, the rhetoric I’m hearing is that its the last days and Satan has power over the land.
ReTx, The flyer I’ve seen for the October 28 “Northern California” Religious Freedom Conference includes Elders Rasband, Keetch, and Wickman (emeritus) and is explicitly for “Members ages 16 and older” and “members” of stakes outside the Sacramento area are “invited” to be present for the broadcast by live feed to meetinghouses in assigned stakes. It says nothing about bringing neighbors. The pictures on the flyer are of the three Elders, what I take to be a Muslim family, a Black congregation, a white bride and groom outside what I take to be an LDS temple (looks a bit like SLC and the bride’s dress has cap sleeves), and a female Jewish rabbi with scroll and Jewish onlookers. From the text of the flyer I would suppose that only one of these four groups is invited to the conference. Others have also understood the invitation to “members” to mean non-members are not invited. Not sure how bringing neighbors got into this, maybe there was also a letter to bishops on the announcement from the pulpit. Irrelevantly, I was amused that the shirts of those pictured men wearing ties are white for Mormons and blue for others, but I doubt that was intentional. Sometimes I take amusement where I can find it.
“From the text of the flyer I would suppose that only one of these four groups is invited to the conference.” That totally made me laugh. Well done!
We have a very zealous bishop when it comes to missionary work, so it is entirely possible he decided to invite the neighbors on his own. The flyer hasn’t made it to our area yet. I imagine the bride, groom, and temple make it clear that marriage rights (rites?) are a key point of the meeting? Ugh.
I rarely make it to church in time for announcements and I haven’t heard anything about the special Religious Freedom conference in CA. I wonder if it has to do with this bill being considered in the legislature?
From the LATimes:
“A measure that would bar employers from firing workers for having an abortion or giving birth to a child out of wedlock is getting pushback from religious groups who say such a bill would prevent them from requiring employees to act in accordance with their faith.
Under the bill by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego), employers would not be able to discipline or fire workers for any reproductive health decision, such as pregnancy, in-vitro fertilization or abortion.”
A link to the article about the pending legislation:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-an-anti-discrimination-measure-or-blow-1490826757-htmlstory.html
Thank you so much for writing this piece, it articulates many of the annoyances I’ve been feeling lately.
Wonderful post and I really enjoyed the advice from your coaches.
I tend to not have much sympathy for the “religious freedom” crowd. When organized religions use the levers of popular opinion and government to enforce their views and impinge the civil rights of those with whom they disagree, they shouldn’t be surprised when those tables are turned and those groups seek to curb the power of organized religion.
If only Jesus had said something about how we should treat our neighbors, perhaps we could have avoided this mess….
I’ve noticed that we have had an internal dialogue in Mormonism from the beginning that points fingers at our “enemies.” We have cultivated a very us vs. them culture in the LDS Church. Some General Authorities have tried to defuse this sort of thinking. President Hinckley, for instance. But others (just read the most recent conference report) keep focusing on our “enemies.” If someone disagrees with us or has different standards or opposing some of our more political ventures, then they must be inspired by Satan. They are on the other team. They are our enemies. As I read Church history, it seems we were very good at one thing: making enemies. And it is obvious that the fault wasn’t just on the other side. Often Mormons placed themselves in a position that gave their neighbors little choice but to oppose them. Between our only-true-church rhetoric and our tendency to accumulate political and economic power locally, we always made it very difficult for our neighbors. We often weren’t very neighborly, and we didn’t have the ability to see things from their point of view (this is called empathy). In my mind, a lot of the “persecution” early Saints faced was totally avoidable.
“We” Mormons have always had a persecution complex originating from historical events in church history. The purported attack on religious freedom is just the newest version. It has always been “us” vs “them,” in some form or fashion.
But my pet peeve is the “persecution” (too strong of a word) that happens within the church when one doesn’t fit the cookie-cutter mold.
Recently someone in our ward, suggesting our kids are being mercilessly made fun of etc. , referenced Elder Holland’s talk at a neighboring stake where he exhorted young people to stay with the church. But my family’s experience has been the culture within the church was far more discouraging than the very rare comments from peers at school etc. If Elder Holland (or the ward member) thinks young people are only/mostly dropping out of the church in response to outside pressure, they are missing a much larger problem.
” Shades of Prop 8, I’m cringing already”
Amen
The Prop 8 campaign and how it unfolded in our stake has significantly changed my (and my husband’s) involvement with the church.
When religious authorities use distortions, demonization and untruths–deny such material taught is inappropriate/flawed and fail to correct the record–they have little moral authority in my view.
” Shades of Prop 8, I’m cringing already”
The religious freedom tour came through the San Diego area last Saturday, and it didn’t strike me as shades of Prop 8. Our version had Elder Christofferson presiding, but I think much of it was presented by two lawyers. I missed the first half as I had a reception to attend (I hate it when the church schedules things on Saturdays), but the part I saw seemed very reasonable. My impression is that the church is genuinely very concerned about religious freedom, but it didn’t strike me as being at all alarmist. In fact, my impression is that they are at least as concerned with -how- members express their support for religious freedom as they are that they actually do it. The strategy is “fairness for all”, and if members come across strident or aggressive rather than conciliatory, I think the church feels that will work against the strategy. They made it very clear they’re not worried about gay marriage being forced in our temples, they’re more worried about things like BYU’s accreditation being threatened over the honor code. For the part I heard, I didn’t hear a single word about opposing gay marriage. My feeling is that the church acknowledges the gay marriage battle was lost and is worried the opposing forces are now interested in beating religious people out of the public sphere.
My take on the religious freedom conference was that it was too long (it was two hours long, and the hour I was there was sufficient), but that it was reasonable, even if reasonable people could disagree, and not simply a product of a persecution complex. I’d be interested to see what a “faithful progressive” makes of it. I hope somebody (more progressive than me) attends one of these and writes a post on it. And, it’s possible that the tone is a little different with Elder Rasband presiding instead of Elder Christofferson.
Living 15 minutes from the Sacramento Temple, I plan on attending the fireside. I’m cautiously hopeful that the scope will be broad enought to include all religions and be empathetic to opposing political forces. Was prop 8 overdone? Yes. Does the church leadership have valid concerns regarding the efforts of militant secularists to marginilize religion? Yes. Should a reasonable balance be sought between LGBT rights and religious rights? Yes. I’ll be taking notes at the meeting. I expect an even mix of good, bad and confusing. It should be interesting.
Martin: Can you clarify the worry about losing accreditation over the Honor Code? Is it because BYU requires an unchanging affirmation of religious belief in the LDS church in order to avoid expulsion and lost credits? (The “Free BYU” movement) If that’s the worry, then it’s a problem of BYU’s own making. Require orthopraxy and not orthodoxy, and problem solved. The Honor Code should be about standards (no cheating, no criminal behavior, even dress and housing standards), but not about one’s confidence in claiming to possess a Mormon-approved testimony.
Part of the value of BYU (just IMHO) is to help build testimonies in young people through exposure to religion classes and other students and teachers. Forcing it by requiring them to claim a firmness of testimony that meets a random bishop’s standard creates anxiety and an opportunity for them to say “Well, I’m not sure, I have doubts, I want to have integrity, so I can’t say that.” We lose them, like an overeager girlfriend pushing for commitment too soon. Can’t we just wait and see where this date leads before pushing for a ring?
We should have enough faith in BYU’s ability to help build weak testimonies into stronger ones rather than trying to force kids at a time when their neural pathways are still forming to make a stand they aren’t ready to make or to hide their doubts if they occur while they are enrolled.
Martin – Thanks for sharing. I didn’t realize this sort of thing was working its way around, which gives me hope that it is not going to be another political push.
Was yours a broadcast from the temple grounds as well? I wonder why they just didn’t do an entire state meeting? It would save them a bunch of time.
Angela,
My guess is they are worried about the CA legislation, (‘“A measure that would bar employers from firing workers for having an abortion or giving birth to a child out of wedlock is getting pushback from religious groups who say such a bill would prevent them from requiring employees to act in accordance with their faith”), hence the special meeting(s) in CA. Sacramento is, afterall, the state capital where legislators meet.
As it stands now, at least those employed at BYU have to conform to the Honor Code. Women employees who give birth to out-of-wedlock
children and women who have abortions would certainly be violating the honor code and subject to dismissal from employment with BYU.
While BYU is in UT and not CA, the legislation could at least affect LDS institutes and others employed by CES. Of course the church wouldn’t want such legislation to gain a foothold anywhere.
Lois, am I correct in understanding from your comment that BYU, amongst others, are campaigning for the right to sack employees for either having a child when unmarried,or having an abortion?
I ask this with some incredulity. What possible purpose would that serve? I’m sure I don’t need to point out that this would be discriminatory since I guess at issue is sexual activity.
Lois: That’s really strange if that’s their concern since the BYUs have such a low % of women working there anyway. Also (I’m not familiar with this legislation, so please correct me if I’m off in understanding it), religions already have an exemption for jobs that require adherence to religious conduct standards, but religious freedom rallying usually pushes to make those religious exemptions applicable for other groups and individuals (e.g. Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a or a small business owner or an individual). I suppose that someone could make BYU or a Catholic hospital a gray area. Is that where the legislation is aimed?
Handlewithcare,
Yes, I believe so. The church wants to be able to conduct business as it sees fit, according to its own standards and code of conduct.
The proposed legislation (it passed the CA Assembly) is AB 569
“Do LDS employees need to hold a current temple recommend to work for BYU?
No, but LDS employees need to be temple worthy. LDS employees accept, as a condition of employment, the standards of conduct consistent with qualifying for temple privileges. All employees are expected to be role models of a life that combines spiritual values and personal integrity, and to conduct their work in a professional manner consistent with the values espoused by the university and the Church. In most instances, employees will have a current temple recomment. However, in rare circumstances, this may not be the case. The university regularly contacts ecclesiastical leaders concerning the temple eligibility of all LDS employees.”
(https://www.byu.edu/hr/?q=job-seekers/ecclesiastical-questions)
Thanks for the clarification. That’s terrifying. Religiously sponsored moral enforcement. I think I may be in the wrong church.
Angela C — I’m not sure exactly what the BYU honor code fear is. It may be with regards to expelling apostates, or maybe it’s because the honor code discriminates against homosexuals (PDA which is okay for heterosexuals might not be okay for homosexuals), or maybe it’s not exactly accreditation that’s the problem, but the elimination from competing for research grants because of BYU’s institutional views on homosexuality or abortion or any other religiously based point of view.
I understand the concerns regarding the BYU honor codes, but calling on external forces to force BYU into the way you want it is kind of like calling child protective services on your spouse because he spanks the children. If it’s that bad, then of course, you have to call. But once you’ve invited CPS into your home, you’ve given up your rights as well. Ask anybody’s who’s experienced it. I don’t think those cheering on the diminution of religious rights realize what they’re asking for.
I didn’t have time to look harder, but here is a list of religious freedom concerns that the New Era gave: https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/understand/why-it-matters-whats-at-stake.
This is probably a more official list, but I think it’s the same as the one I linked to in the New Era: https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/understand/why-it-matters-whats-at-stake
Oops… same link. Too much of a hurry…
Angela:
The latest version of the bill contains this:
“The Legislature finds that employees of religiously affiliated institutions are entitled to the same protections as any other employee under the California Labor Code, unless the employee is the functional equivalent of minister, and therefore subject to a “ministerial exception” as developed in First Amendment case law. The Legislature agrees with the concurring opinion of Justice Alito in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. (2012) 565 U.S. 171, 199, which argues that the ministerial exception should apply only to an “employee who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”
(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB569)
Some religious groups are opposed to this bill, but I wasn’t able to find an article in regard to the LDS church stance and this specific issue.
However there was an article about “Preserving religious freedom in mental health profession” in Deseret News. Perhaps the CA legislature would
impinge on LDS social services.
I wish I could remember where I first heard about this bill.(I thought it was in the Deseret News?)
Will these special conferences be held in most areas of CA? (so far I’ve not heard anything about one being held in our area)
or in other states?
Martin: “I understand the concerns regarding the BYU honor codes, but calling on external forces to force BYU into the way you want it is kind of like calling child protective services on your spouse because he spanks the children. If it’s that bad, then of course, you have to call. But once you’ve invited CPS into your home, you’ve given up your rights as well. Ask anybody’s who’s experienced it. I don’t think those cheering on the diminution of religious rights realize what they’re asking for.” I’m still doubtful whether this is the church’s intention or even related to what they consider at risk. Free BYU was formed because BYU barred some students from graduating when their religious affiliation changed, and they lost their credits and couldn’t transfer. They said the code encourages honesty but prohibits telling the truth if your beliefs change.
Is that a spanking? A more apt analogy would be for a child who has been rendered homeless to accuse the parent who kicked him or her out of abuse. There is no equal relationship (spouses) as your analogy would show, and I’m not sure what the students who were expelled had left to lose. They already lost everything BYU had to give them. I’m not aware of any progress on the Free BYU front that has the church worried.
It would be a bit more savory if BYU didn’t violate other people’s religious freedoms, such as the Sikh gentleman in question. You can read about that here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2014/11/19/byu-religious-freedom-or-its-lack-and-beards/
Great post. I think I’m mostly with Cody Hatch. The whole religious freedom thing has simply become a dog whistle for those Christian conservatives who still want to be able to legally discriminate against homosexuals and others. This, of course, is a conscious strategy rather than an organically arrived at sense of alarm. Religious freedoms are not eroding in this country and it’s a shame that many of our members/leaders see giving others equal access to what they are rightfully entitled to as somehow being a threat to them. Of course, the use of fear to keep folks united against another group of people seen as a threat is a strategy as old as human beings, but it’s really unseemly, unsavory and, IMHO, completely out of place in an organization that claims to embrace and reflect Christ’s teachings. I often wonder why Mormons, who claim to have such unique and privileged access to the truth, sometimes seem like they don’t really want to share that truth with everyone, but instead want to keep it for themselves in order to be able to feel superior. Using “the truth” as a club with which to bludgeon others is completely antithetical to my understanding of the gospel. I’m getting quite tired of hearing the endless pronouncements in sacrament meeting and Sunday school that we’re the ONLY ones who have truth and everyone else is unhappy, they just don’t know they are. That’s simply nonsense. Two of my atheist lesbian friends who have been in a faithful, loving partnership for thirty years sure seem a lot calmer, better adjusted and much more kind and tolerant than 90 percent of the people in my ward.
I suppose the church and its members feels like it/they have got to have something to push against, otherwise the church might lose its legitimacy. There is such a huge price to be paid by doing this, however. If we’d leave behind the whole “there must needs be opposition in all things” and instead embrace a slogan like “Love everyone everywhere,” we’d get a lot further. As it is, when we talk about how the church is surrounded on all sides by evil or that other churches really aren’t as awesome as ours, we end up sounding like a 12 year old desperately trying to convince himself that Santa Claus really does exist.
“I don’t think those cheering on the diminution of religious rights realize what they’re asking for.”
I want cowards to not be able to hide behind their holy books when saying I don’t deserve health care, or to otherwise be treated like a person deserving of equal respect.
I want the government to stop rewarding them for making my life hell, with “special rights” like tax avoidance.
It’s also worth pointing out that “religious rights” in this context are very much “for me and not for thee.”
The court challenge to North Carolina’s anti-LGBT+ constitutional amendment was, IIRC, brought by a minister, who rightly pointed out that their religious freedom to solemnize a relationship they felt was sacred and blessed was being infringed on.
Cody Hatch and Brother Sky: For you, does the Church completely lack a legitimate basis for its position that religious freedom generally is being threatened? That is, is this all just thinly-veiled culture warring by religious folk? Are there really no legitimate rights at stake? By my questions, you might guess I find it almost impossible to argue that there is absolutely no legitimate reason for religious persons to be concerned about their liberties right now.
A few examples (all from the “left” side of the religious freedom debate, to meet the charge of the conservative dog whistling): Should Muslim permanent residents of the US be concerned about their religious freedom? Should an atheist living in the American south be concerned? And what do you make of the lively debate in legal-scholarly circles regarding the “specialness” (vel non) of religion and the need for its protection? I note that the Church has been a vigorous participant in these facets of the issue as well, and not only in the more typically conservative areas.
“Should Muslim permanent residents of the US be concerned about their religious freedom? Should an atheist living in the American south be concerned? And what do you make of the lively debate in legal-scholarly circles regarding the “specialness” (vel non) of religion and the need for its protection?”
Both of those groups already are concerned. Do you understand why?
Perhaps you might, if you spent less time arguing why laws against religious discrimination shouldn’t apply to you because you’re Christian and that makes you a special snowflake.
Brother Sky, I too feel along the lines of Cody and yourself.
I loved reading Armand Mauss’ book “The Angel and the Beehive”. I recall he talked a bit about the church needing an enemy to energize against. Quite a while back it was those evil monogamists, then once that was dropped (kind a sort of) the Word of Wisdom became a differentiator (including even shooting pool).
That need for something to rally against isn’t inherently a bad thing. Just think if the church put as much energy and effort into feeding the hungry? I commend the church for placing a bit of effort in helping the current refuges, but that seemed to fall generally on deaf ears.
Happy Hubby: I think that there are, indeed, many things to rally against. I think where Mormons err is in elevating the principle/concept of rallying itself above thoughtful and deliberate push back against things that are actually harmful. It’s part of the problem with any binary way of thinking: If there’s not an opposition to your position, you’ve got to manufacture one in order to feel that your position is “right” or “true”. This is why I think Mormons would do well to study Buddhism and Plotinus. We’d get a more nuanced and more truly ethical perspective, I think.
And to Gadflown: I should have been more accurate in one of my statements. I should have said: “The religious freedoms of the Christian Right are not eroding in this country.” As Jewelfox points out, anyone in this country who’s not a member of the Christian Right should indeed be concerned about their religious freedom since the Christian Right in general (and yes, I’m including the Mormon Church here) seeks, under the guise of protecting their “religious freedom” to curtail both the religious freedom and the basic rights of other groups. Thanks for catching my slip up.
Gadflown, I generally am concerned with the erosion of all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in the US. I’m also okay with a general awareness of the need to protect religious freedom; however, that is not what I see in operation here. I perceive the Church leaders as being specifically concerned about their version of religion (i.e., the Religious Right – sorry, I’m not going to call it Christianity) and specifically seeking to do two things: 1) Extend religious exemptions to individuals; and 2) Carve out special cases for religious-based businesses. I am unpersuaded by their arguments, probably because I think individuals should stop being assholes and just treat others with dignity and respect, and also because I think the Church shouldn’t be involved in business. They can cry me a river on that point. Stop being a real estate conglomerate and get to being a church. I’m unmoved by their plight and am unconcerned about my ability to worship God or be a Christian – but that’s because I’m not shoving my religion down the throat of others or using it as a club to beat away the civil rights of “sinners”.
Cody Hatch: You’re point about the Church’s business dealings is a good one. Perhaps someone here with more 1st Amendment clout than me can weigh in on how that is playing into the Church’s religious freedom advocacy.
Jewelfox, and others: I understand why Muslims and atheists are concerned about their liberties. They ought to be. But the thing about liberties is that, if one group, or even one person, has reason to be concerned, then we all have reason to be concerned. Unlike Brother Sky, I read the Church as being more generally concerned about religious liberty than just the narrow “cake baker”-type cases. That’s not true of some of the narrowly-interested advocacy groups with whom the Church works, but I think the Church itself is concerned broadly. I don’t think it’s a coincidence, for example, that the “religious freedom” series in the Church’s newsroom was initiated literally one day after the Muslim Ban was implemented; nor that the Church issued an official statement near-directly condemning Trump’s proposal of such a ban during the election. Recent general conference talks provide more examples of the Church stepping up to defend refugees which, in today’s political climate, are pretty clearly understood to be Muslims, racial or ethnic minorities, or both. These are not mere conciliations to the “other side”: they are evidence that the Church (correctly) views religious freedom as being for all, including for those on the right and the left.
Lastly, on a different note, a quote from the comments policy:
“That being said, play nice. The rules for ‘nice’ are pretty much the same as for Kindergarten.
If you dislike a comment (either tone, content, or the strength of reasoning), we encourage you to comment in response.”
This is me “comment[ing] in response.” I get that I’m no “snowflake,” and I hope I’m not an “asshole.” (maybe by saying this I’m proving myself to be both). I know I can come across as contrarian, but I try to present arguments, not argue. I always write in good faith and never intend to insult or inflame. I humbly ask the same of everyone else.
Gadflown, I apologize if I appeared to call you an “asshole”. You were not the target of that comment but rather the cake makers and such who refuse to create a cake for a happy gay couple, stripping them of their dignity. Either way, I probably should not have used that word and I appreciate you calling me out on it.