“Most British people think religion causes more harm than good, according to a survey commissioned by the Huffington Post. Surprisingly, even among those who describe themselves as “very religious” 20 percent say that religion is harmful to society. For that we can probably thank the internet, which broadcasts everything from Isis beheadings to stories about Catholic hospitals denying care to miscarrying women, to lists of wild and weird religious beliefs, to articles about psychological harms from Bible-believing Christianity.” -Valerie Tarico

While I don’t put absolute faith in surveys to give us an accurate picture of societal trends, I do believe there’s a growing suspicion that religion might be the cause, not the cure for dangerous divisions that threaten modern civilization. I believe the idea that “religion causes more harm than good” is feeding a notion that religious liberty doesn’t support the common good.  Let me tell you why I don’t agree and why I, in fact strongly, believe that religious liberty is good for everybody; including those who see themselves as irreligious.

• Religious liberty is about freedom of thought, belief and the expression of that thought and belief, so everyone is liberated by it

Some people, intentionally or not, are using the words “freedom of worship.”  I am not merely talking about the freedom to privately worship but also the liberty to incorporate one’s religious and philosophical beliefs into all phases of their lives.  Even if you are not the least bit interested in participating in an organized religion you should be extremely interested in what Os Guinness refers to as “soul liberty.”

Matthew J. Franck of Religious Freedom Project writes, “The building of any free society begins with a recognition of this principle. All other human freedoms—to think, to speak, to write, to teach and learn; to marry, to form families, to associate with others in all the varied loves of which we are capable; to work, to invent, to contract and acquire and buy and sell in assuring our material needs are met—all of these are built on the foundation of our freedom from the illusory mastership of the state, and a recognition of our relation to the true Master who made us the kind of beings we are. No political project can long preserve the fullness of human freedom in all its dimensions that does not place religious freedom in the front rank, as truly the “first freedom,” never to be sacrificed to other causes.”

• Religious liberty protects us from the abuse often caused  by the empowering of a single philosophy, including atheism

Yes it’s true, religion sometimes does bad stuff; but do you know why religions do bad stuff?  Religion does bad stuff because humans do bad stuff.  Atheistic Communist regimes killed  more than 100 million people in the 20th century alone according to The Black Book of Communism and according to Cleon Skousen in his best-selling book The Naked Communist. Over 300,000 Frenchman died during the anti Catholicism/Christian reign of terror during the French Revolution; over 30% of those executed were peasants.  All of those people were murdered while the official ideology was the “Cult of Reason,” not Islam, Judaism or Christianity. My point is… if you are trying to get rid of abusive philosophical hierarchies you might just be going from the frying pan to the fire by legislating away religious liberty.

• The more we restrict and eliminate the free exercise of religion the more we establish the state as the sole authority

This coordinates with my last point.  True religious liberty provides a beautiful check and balance to the necessary power of the state. The brilliance of the constitution of the United States is that it preserves authority of civil government without eliminating the incredible power of religion.  When statism becomes the religion of a culture it can be just as oppressive as a theocracy. Matthew Franck makes the point, “the state that pretends to the kind of ultimacy that we attribute to the divine has overstepped its bounds.”

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention advanced the premise that America would not have a Head of State who is also the Head of Church. That was what he meant by separation of church and state. Jefferson also put forth that he did not want a nation where the state could subjugate religious beliefs to the state.

• Religious liberty acknowledges that the freedom to live out faith based beliefs is of interest to us all

People like Valerie Tarico and Sam Harris are the new breed of anti-religion atheist who try to make the point that science has advanced to the point that we no longer need faith based beliefs or myths; and in fact they are keeping us in the dark ages. But where do they get this unquestioned faith in science? In fact they will often refer to future scientific discoveries that promise to head off whatever threatens mankind.  You see, science worshippers can’t operate without faith either and I would fight for their “religious liberty;” they would be wise to fight for ours.

“The United States has a long history of great religious tolerance and I think it’s one of our highest achievements. During Prohibition, when the U.S. Constitution banned the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors,” Congress made it a point to exempt churches and bodies of faith that used wine for sacramental purposes or religious rites. In other words, churches that used actual wine for Communion were still allowed to exercise their faith. And this permission was granted during a time when banning all forms of alcohol was considered to be in the highest national interest. When military service was compulsory, religious pacifists sought to be excused from service. Many countries, including England and Germany, refused to accommodate religious objectors because, they reasoned, raising armies to protect one’s national interests is a paramount consideration.” -Allen West

I won’t get into some high profile cases where the religious liberty of citizens, churches and Christian Universities is being challenged now because it would be necessary for me to add several paragraphs.  I will say this however, I completely agree that the freedom of religion in a civil society can sometimes be outweighed by people’s rights to health, security, and order.  I also believe that Christians in particular have, at times, over stepped their bounds in trying to impose Biblical morality on non-believers.  Having said that, I believe society is moving away from the best interest of us all when it seeks to impose secular culture on religion, thereby removing from us our “First Freedom.”

Finally, while I see no Biblical precedent for Christ followers to seek persecution, but if that’s where we’re headed I am comforted  by the words of Hamas Yusuf, “Religion, paradoxically, thrives in environments of persecution; it often withers in the cornucopia of capitalism and liberal democracies.”   So for the good of everyone may we promote religious liberty while trusting God when it’s denied.