April 2016

“The message of the Gospel transcends all political persuasions and ideologies. Our first obligation is simply to begin to think critically about the great social issues of the day and to relate them to the message of the Gospel. Only then can we begin to consider our response to these issues as Christians.” – Paul Henry¹

Benjamin Ridder

Paul Henry encouraged Christians to not only partake in political debates, but also to do so within the framework of the Gospel. Does a gospel-centered approach mean that Christians should unanimously and unquestionably advocate for maintaining and even expanding religious freedom? If so, how should Christians think about concerns from other citizens about exclusion and even discrimination? To be sure, religious freedom issues are not monolithic. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, while prohibiting the establishment of religion via law. Is there a workable balance between respecting religious convictions and their public expression and protecting citizens from unjust discrimination and unequal treatment? When does one’s right to live by one’s faith cross over into violating someone else’s rights? When does one’s right to equal treatment cross over into undermining religious liberty and practice?

David Sehat argues that the “central issue” of religious liberty is “how to adjudicate between diverse constituencies with competing ethical claims within a moral framework that might be acceptable to all.” As a society we must determine the minimal moral standards expected of one another and do so with as much fairness as possible.² On one hand, people fear that the freedom to live by their religious convictions in the public square will soon be restricted to private expression in one’s home or place of worship. Others, however, find that public expression of faith constrains the rights of individuals who believe and live differently. Cases like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Obergefell v. Hodges are the most recent examples of this tension.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, while prohibiting the establishment of religion via law.

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the due process and equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment. The case, Obergefell v. Hodges, raises a number of normative questions. For instance, can faith-based institutions continue to hire employees who share their convictions or religion identity? Or, should religious adoption agencies have to accept the government’s position on same-sex marriage in order to continue placing children in homes? Ryan Anderson of the argues that the Supreme Court’s decision poses a serious threat to the rights of conscience and religious freedom. Emma Green of asserts that Obergefell v. Hodges has made discrimination against LGBT people easier. The question, which may not have a straightforward answer, is a matter of protection from discrimination and freedom of conscience. To what degree, if any, does one have to deny a service based on religious objections? What right does one have, if any, to require another party to render a service?

Religious liberty and discrimination questions pertain not only to individuals but also to communities, like Calvin College. Should private religious schools be required to endorse the government’s definition of marriage in order to compete for grants and for students to receive federal loans? When a faith-based organization accepts government funding, does it forfeit some or all of its rights to enforce religious standards and exercise religious practices? Religion consists of more than internal rituals, celebrations, and prayer, and faith-based organizations point to their right to practice their faith in the public realm.³ On the other hand, critics note that the public expressions of faith-based organizations “don’t have the right to tell others what to do."⁴

The authors of the U.S. Constitution were at the very least concerned with prohibiting the establishment of a national state church. They wanted to protect rights of religious minorities to practice their faith freely from the majority. But, as noted above, this is not the primary issue today. Allen Hertzke contends that James Madison, the primary author of the First Amendment, presents the most timeless philosophical understanding of religious liberty. He states, “The most compelling justification for religious liberty is the freedom of conscience, the freedom to fulfill obligations—especially sacred duties—which flow from an authority higher than the state.”⁵

We hope this session will help us navigate the implications of this fundamental commitment to religious liberty, and the challenges of how such a commitment can co-exist with other important values in a pluralistic culture.

Candidate Stances

• Ted Cruz: ;
• Donald Trump:
• John Kasich: N/A
• Hillary Clinton:
• Bernie Sanders: