With (Religious) Liberty and Civility for All: A Call for a Truce
A mutual siege mentality is harming both sides — it’s time for another approach.
[Editor’s note: The following essay was submitted to and rejected by several august publications, all on the grounds that it wasn’t for them but “good luck getting this published!” While I understand the reticence to discuss this issue from a middle ground between bigotry and acceptance of the liberal concensus, I believe this failure of nerve is unhealthy. Lots of people occupy the middle space around the positions taken here, and they need a voice. If it’s not me, then let it be others. We have enough extremism-driven discourse already. — AW]
Pride month has come and gone. Its celebration by those ranging from world leaders (including Donald Trump, sincerely or not) to businesses, from media outlets to many on social media shows that the cheering of the right of LGBT people to live openly as they are is now all the rage, especially though far from exclusively in liberal, educated, and urbanite circles.
But there is one rather large group which did not celebrate, and parts of which are indeed still panicking. Those Jews, Muslims, and Christians who adhere to traditional religious rules regarding sexual behavior and conduct see Pride Month as an open declaration of war by society on their beliefs, including among those who wish to be tolerant and accepting of who they see as sinners, if not the sin.
Let’s be blunt: The question of the clash between LGBT rights and that of the freedom of the traditionally religious to live their life and not violate what they consider to be God’s law and command is at the very core of the internal debate between the traditionalist and social conservative wing of the right and almost everyone else in that political camp (to say nothing of everyone outside it). It is here where the former feel that the latter sold the former out, where they “lost” with nothing in exchange.
There is no other area of social life where the religious and the socially conservative (often though not always the same thing) can really see themselves as “losing” entirely. The fight over abortion remains very much in play, with victories in some places and losses in others. The fight over free speech on campuses has seen many legal and administrative victories. Even the question of the health of (statistically, necessarily overwhelmingly heterosexual) families has support across the aisle on a number of levels.
But the LGBT issue is different. Ever since Obergefell, and perhaps even before, a panic has struck the traditionalists, as though the question of LGBT legal rights and cultural acceptance is the kryptonite to weaken and kill all they care for like a hot knife through butter. The tactical victory in Masterpiece Cakeshop aside, they envision a world where any religious institution outside an actual place of worship (and maybe not even that) — hospitals, adoption agencies, youth clubs, schools, campus groups — is sued, regulated, or legally harassed out of existence. Even in the event that this somehow doesn’t happen, the aforementioned cultural dominance will mean anyone who simply expresses or believes in these views will be persona non grata in the public square, a pariah to be hounded out at the first opportunity.
Many LGBTs (and their many straight allies), for their part, their rights in many cases acquired only very recently and within my own adult lifetime, view this potential backlash with trepidation, fear, and anger. As I will discuss below, they see a great deal of hypocrisy in a group now perhaps genuinely afraid but which seems to think that the history of this issue started in 2008 or 2015, with social and religious conservatives being exclusively the victim rather than the aggressor — even by the terms laid down by those who argue strongly for religious liberty combined with tolerance such as David French.
I have to admit: I find myself feeling a lot of sympathy for both sides of this fight.
As an Orthodox Jew with a deep knowledge of my people’s history, anything that has a whiff of coercion of violation of religious law or conscience rubs me in all the wrong ways. There is a long and sordid history of pagan, monotheistic, and secular governments forcing either martyrdom or sin on my people in the name of what was then considered “enlightened” or “obviously true (Jews were often charged with maliciously persisting in error).”
Furthermore, and contra some on the left, religious law is not something we practice only in worship in a synagogue, temple, church, or mosque — but also in everyday life. There is and should be room for finding what ways we can to get along with fellow citizens who live different lives, and certainly to treat one another with basic decency, but that is not at all the same thing as “actively affirm me and what I do.” When it comes to protecting legal religious liberty and the right of those who hold conservative views on the matter to have a presence in the mainstream public square, I am very much in the maximalist Frenchism camp.
But. But. I also, to the extent that I can as someone who is not personally LGBT, understand where they are coming from. There was a time not too long ago when it was social conservatives who were the aggressors in this war. When people were fired, jailed, killed, or institutionalized for the crime of saying they were gay; it was only 16 years ago that anti-sodomy laws were on the books of 12 states. This is to say nothing of the DADT policy, where anyone who simply declared themselves to be gay was humiliatingly discharged for wanting the privilege to fight and even die for their country as who they are.
Or take transgender Americans, who are often bullied, who disproportionately end up on the street or worse, and who are often the butt of some pretty ugly insults until quite recently. Be furious at the often radical activists and revolutionary thinkers on gender all you want, don’t accept the gender fluidity thesis as opposed to a binary with clear exceptions — that’s not the fault of people who for whatever reason (I am not a scientist and cannot comment on such matters) feel the way they do.
None of these things and many more besides is ancient history. Some of it is still ongoing or really only started declining in the last few years. There are scores of LGBTs with horror stories about conversion therapy efforts or other forms of coercion on the part of those who now fear that the shoe is about to go on the other foot.
The argument “Well, they already have their rights recognized” is increasingly true, but also misses the point. Rights, even constitutional rights, can be rescinded, ignored, or restricted. It has happened to many a minority even in the short time of democratic ascendance in the past two hundred years. There is a strong core of historical truth to the fear that a backlash will render these victories null and void, even if it is sometimes overstated. They have a point, too.
Before we talk policy or any specific law, before we get into how to balance the important values of religious freedom and basic civil rights and decency (and what those entail) — it behooves both sides to at least try to talk to one another, to learn to understand each other anew. There’s a lot of hurt and real pain and fear — and I mean this seriously, not as lip service — but I think revenge or a siege mentality will only help perpetuate that cycle. Both groups are composed of American citizens: they are our relatives, our neighbors, and our friends.
When and wherever realistically possible, we should be trying to lower the flames or arrive at a compromise or at least a truce. Perhaps this may come in the form of greater federalism, or conducting of dialogue or local community boards with representatives on both sides. There are certainly many things “my side” can do to acquire good will such as supporting anti-bullying efforts in schools, seeing to the erection of special trans shelters equipped to meet their often unique needs, or perhaps increasing funding for public adoption agencies or hospitals so that religious ones aren’t so often hounded.
It is around here, if not before, that many even non-religious conservatives will roll their eyes at me and tell me how naïve and weak I am. They will tell of how the activist wing of the left wants nothing more than total surrender or victory on this issue, and that it is well poised to do so, as not a single major Democratic national candidate — including those who are branded as “moderate” — have shown the slightest intention to seek compromise here. It’s all or nothing.
OK. Let’s assume this is the case. If so, as in any political war, you’re going to need allies. And that means not just LGBTs themselves but their straight friends and allies whose increasing support in the polls for same-sex marriage was a big part of why Obergefell passed. Right now, they see many of the people on the social conservative right as nothing more than irredeemable bigots and monsters who would turn back the clock to rampant abuse of their peers given half a chance.
I don’t think this is the case or at least the whole truth, certainly going forward with the increased tolerance for LGBT Americans. But it is the widespread perception, and it has a lot of evidence from a checkered past to back it. All the legal victories in the world will be for naught if the fight for public opinion is lost, at least for those of us who reject a Benedict Option of removing traditional religion from the public square entirely. Even from a purely cold and calculating political standpoint, working publicly for compromise, reconciliation, and working together when possible makes all the sense in the world.
I am not in any position to tell any religion or members thereof what to do, any more than I believe myself to tell LGBT groups or individuals where their red lines are. That each must decide for themselves. But let’s at least try. Let’s make a good faith, sustained effort to find a way to live together, acknowledging the past, and working towards a truly pluralistic and diverse America — which includes full religious and ideological diversity — in every sense of the word.
