The really chilling part of…[Frank Bruni’s] statement is the restriction of religious liberty to “religious services or what happens in a church, temple, or mosque.” This is becoming more and more common, as major political and legal figures speak more and more of “freedom of worship” as a replacement for religious liberty. Religious liberty certainly includes freedom of worship, but it by no means stops there.
Furthermore, when the proponents of same-sex marriage and the new sexual revolution promise even to respect what goes on in a church, temple, or mosque, they evidently cannot keep their arguments straight. In the very same column, Bruni complains that religious congregations are given too much liberty to define their own ministry. He laments that “churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ”˜ministerial exception’ to anti-discrimination laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”
The front lines of the battle for religious liberty will be at the door of your congregation very soon, if this column is any indication ”” and it is. While promising to respect “freedom of worship,” Bruni openly implies that congregations should not have the right to hire and fire ministers or clergy on the basis of their sexual orientation or beliefs. What kind of liberty is that?
Read it all and make sure to read all of the five references cited at the bottom of the article.
As the examples Dr. Mohler cite demonstrate, the Constitution has become worthless as a bulwark for rights. What is written on the paper has been interpreted to mean whatever the flavor of the week calls for, precedence be damned.