What Is Religious Freedom?

by

It all started last May, when the Houston City Council passed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (popularly called HERO), banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, disability, pregnancy and genetic information, family, marital or military status. Sounds good, right? Outcry soon arose, however, over the perceived infringement upon the rights of wedding cake bakers to practice their religious beliefs by refusing service to gay couples. News articles began to appear as well, with reports that Houston was allowing men to use women’s bathrooms. Curiously, no mention was made of women using men’s bathrooms.

In July, an effort was led by five local pastors to collect signatures demanding that HERO be on the ballot for a city-wide vote. In August, City Council ruled there was an insufficient number of valid signatures to compel a vote. The next day, those who had collected the signatures sued the City of Houston, contesting the decision. Legal proceedings followed, and in early October, as part of the discovery process, lawyers for the City of Houston issued a broad subpoena for all documents, sermons, speeches pertaining to HERO or Mayor Parker in an attempt to build a case about how the signatures in question were collected. This subpoena resulted in an outcry that religious freedom was under attack. Therefore, on October 29, Mayor Parker called a press conference to withdraw the subpoena, but not before a rally drawing national figures to protest had been put in motion for November 2.

As a newcomer to Texas, I have been trying my best to understand what has been happening in my city over the past month. Admittedly, my nose has been buried so deeply in work in the church and community that I had no idea my right to exercise my authorities and duties as a cleric was under attack until Phil Robertson, from Duck Dynasty, was headed to Texas last week to tell us all that we were at risk of ending up in chains.

Last week was confusing to say the least.

It began as it usually does with three Sunday services: an 8:00 am, 10:00 am, and 12:00 pm. Annise Parker and her youngest daughter sat a couple seats away from me at the 10:00; which, while not a weekly occurrence, was not unusual either. Part way through the week, I was informed that Mayor Parker was holding a press conference retracting her subpoena of the sermons and documents from pastors involved in suing the City of Houston, after it caused an outcry at a national level. This seemed a humble choice on her part, and members of our pastoral staff attended in support. Then the week closed with “I Stand Sunday,” which drew in minor celebrities of the religious, political and reality television variety to stand up for religious freedom and against, as they put it, governmental intimidation by figures like Mayor Annise Parker.

When I was asked by friends whether I was going to this last event, “I Stand Sunday,” I had to admit to them that the thought had never crossed my mind. As an ordained woman, I am just as accustomed to hearing my own identity as a female cleric condemned by those figures on the television, radio and from the pulpit.

Many other things did cross my mind, however. Many questions arose as I tried to understand the gray area that we have navigated into as a church and a community. I struggled to place myself in the shoes of those who felt our religious liberties were under attack. I tried to be fair; tried to imagine what it feels like when you are challenged for the first time, when your life has not been one of challenge. I tried to imagine what it feels like when you have built a large, financially profitable religious institution and are feeling that all you have built is threatened. We are all clergy, in the eyes of the law, but our paths can tend to be so different.

In the midst of trying to understand, I did not come up with any easy answers, but I did come up with a couple important questions  that those of us who are preachers of any perspective need to struggle with:

First, what is the difference between a sermon and a political speech?

The first question really should be: Is there a difference? I am going to jump ahead of that, however, and posit that there is.

The second corollary question would be why is this important? And I would propose that the reason has less to do with a fear of losing tax exempt status or being subpoenaed, and more to do with our own integrity to the calling.

For as long as there have been preachers preaching, they have taken stances on social issues. Some preachers in the 1800’s preached in defense of slavery as a divine institution, while others preached against it as an abomination. Some preachers in the early 1900’s preached against women’s suffrage and equality, while others preached in favor of their right to vote, be treated as equals and even be ordained. In the mid 1900’s, some preachers preached in favor of segregation based on race, while others preached against it.

It is no different today. We still disagree, and we still preach on social issues. Therefore, there are some preachers that preach that homosexuality is an abomination, and others that preach that it is a blessing. That is our right.

So, if both sermons and political speeches deal with these topics, what determines whether an oratory is a sermon or a speech?

I don’t know about you, but it is something that I can feel in my bones. I am a preacher, and I am also a public speaker, and I know the difference between the two roles. It is not determined simply by whether I am standing in a pulpit. When I am going to give a speech, I sit down and think about what I want to say. When I am going to deliver a sermon, I sit down and try to listen for what God wants me to say.

And with all that God has led me to say about faithfulness, how to treat others with respect, the nature of the human family, the sin of racism, and the responsibility of the church to the poor – God has never told me to tell people who to vote for or what petition to sign. I don’t need the IRS to tell me there is something questionable about that. If I make the choice to violate the code of ethics surrounding the pulpit in the United States, I am liable to be held accountable by my government and my denomination. More importantly, if I have manipulated the purpose of the pulpit for a political agenda then I have God to answer to, not God to hide behind.

Perhaps this explains why I am struggling to understand what is happening here in Houston.

Which brings me to the second question.

What is religious freedom?

I understand that there are Christians around the world that are killed on a daily basis for preaching what they believe; so I don’t take it lightly that Christians are concerned about protecting their right to practice their religion.

I, also, understand that there is a necessity for caution about the precedents we are setting, and that is why Mayor Parker withdraw the subpoena when she understood the implications herself.

But if, as Fannie Lou Hamer said, “No one is free until everybody’s free,” can we protect our own freedom without fighting for the freedom of others?

If it is really religious freedom that we are concerned about, then wouldn’t the best way of ensuring that be to protect the religious freedom of all people? Shouldn’t we want all people to fully live who they are and practice their faith? If freedom and equality were protected for all people, then Christians wouldn’t need to be so scared. Christians would not feel like they had to maintain power in order to protect themselves.

Additionally, as discussed above, Christians disagree. Which means that some Christians believe that practicing their religious freedom means having the right to marry who they choose, regardless of sex or gender, and to do so within their church.

When Christians disagree, then we end up with some Christians fighting – in the name of religious freedom – against what other Christians claim to be their religious freedoms. You see how it gets messy, don’t you? Freedom of religion cannot dictate which person’s beliefs are right; it can only protect the rights of both to practice their religion in their personal lives.

If what we want is to protect religious freedom, we must protect it for all people; even those with whom we disagree. On the other hand, if what we want is to keep people from living publicly in a way that contradicts our religious beliefs, then that, in actuality, is the end of the separation between church and state.

Image by Flickr user Kevan. Used under Creative Commons License. Cropped from Original.

The Rev. Hannah Adair Bonner is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church and a member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. She currently serves at St. John's Downtown in Houston, TX.