The Right's Definition of "Religious Liberty"

 Civil discord often involves terms taken for granted by all sides of an argument.  Liberty is apparently such a term.  An abstract of an article "The Liberty of the Church: Source, Scope and Scandal" is below.

Patrick McKinley Brennan, 1567Follow

Abstract

This article was presented at a conference, and is part of a symposium, on "The Freedom of the Church in the Modern Era." The article argues that the liberty of the Church, libertas Ecclesiae, is not a mere metaphor, pace the views of some other contributions to the conference and symposium and of the mentality mostly prevailing over the last five hundred years. The argument is that the Church and her directly God-given rights are ontologically irreducible in a way that the rights of, say, the state of California or even of the United States are not. Based on a careful reading of, among other sources, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), the article articulates and defends the Church's self-understanding as a divine institution possessed of supernatural authority that has rightful consequences for the ordering of society and polity. Catholic doctrine upholds a rich concept of individual freedom of conscience and defends a regime of broad toleration, but it does so respectful of the demands of the common goods, natural and supernatural, both of which the Church serves in the exercise of her liberty. The Church anticipates that her claims on her own behalf will be a scandal to the world.

It is shocking to learn that 'liberty' could mean the domination of the Church over civil authority.  But this appears to be the case.  When the phrase "Liberty of the Church" is used in an internet search, there are many links to organizations defending the rights of the individual in religious belief.  I would guess that most people understand the separation of church and state and especially the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is cowardice of the religious right to obfuscate their meaning of Religious Liberty, but it clearly mirrors their violent attempts to defeat democracy, corrupt the courts and dictate behavior.  Religious liberty means the right to obligate society to its supernatural authority.  When one learns of this perversion, it is easy to understand how Catholics have aligned with evangelicals.  In their view, allowing gay marriage, indeed even non-binary sexuality, is against their religion and therefore subject to their supernatural authority to obligate society against such behavior.  Likewise, abortion, birth control, and other related topics are to be adjudicated according to church doctrine, with society and democracy to be subservient.  

Now we have three rabid Catholics on the Supreme Court, disingenuously swearing an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It is apparently within their religious liberty rights to allocate church authority over their sworn oath.  They see no inconsistency in this subterfuge.  As an example, Justice Alito claimed he could not even pronounce the name of the chemical in the FDA-approved abortion drug, mifepristone.  He does not need to understand anything about it.  His faith tells him what medicines should not be available, and an abortion pill is one of them.  Likewise, Justice Thomas, not a Catholic perhaps, but aligned with those who would subjugate the Constitution to religious authority, believes past decisions on the Constitutionality of Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges should be reconsidered.  These cases respectively settled the right of couples to have contraception, the right of gay couples to sexual activity, and the right for gay couples to marry.  Clearly, these threats to individual liberty are aggressive acts to elevate religious law over civil law.

The more widely recognized meaning of the term 'liberty' is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.  Americans who agree with this definition need to ask of their political candidates how they see such liberty in light of their faith.  Any equivocation from the state of the individual being free of oppressive restrictions, including decisions as to sexuality, healthcare decisions, including abortion, is a statement of their allegiance not to the United States and civil law, but to their religious dogma.