In recent years in the United States, Christians who hold to what might be called theologically conservative views--such as traditionalist Catholics and evangelical Protestants--have increasingly found themselves facing efforts to force them, by means of the law, to engage in acts that contravene their deeply-held beliefs. For example, it was only a few years ago that Jack Phillips, an evangelical Christian baker, found himself in trouble with authorities in the state of Colorado because of his refusal to create a "wedding cake" for a same-sex couple. Even more recently, a legal challenge was raised to an accommodation made by the Trump Administration that would have allowed the Little Sisters of the Poor, a order of Catholic nuns, not to be forced to provide contraceptives for their employees. Both of these cases ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which in the end voted in favor of Phillips and the nuns. Nonetheless, it is unlikely these sorts of cases will not continue to arise the public square.
One reason for this legal onslaught against theologically conservative Christians has been a shift in the view of many political progressives as to what freedom of religion entails. In an August 3, 2017 article entitled "The Continuing Attack on Religious Liberty, " which appeared at nationalreview.com (see here), Ryan T. Anderson argues that "three historical developments have created our current predicament: a change of government, a change in sexual values, and a change in how religion is practiced and how it is viewed by our leaders." Regarding the very last of these changes--"how religion is practiced and how it is viewed by our leaders"--Anderson first notes that Protestantism has splintered between "mainline" churches and evangelicals and Catholicism between "doctrinally orthodox" and "docrinally heterodox" believers, and that "these changes helped fuel the rise of the 'nones'--those with no religious affiliation." Consequently, "as Americans become less religious, they care less about religious liberty, for people are most vigilant to protect the rights they themselves want to exercise." He goes on to point out:
At the same time, a form of secularism has challenged the role of religion in public life, arguing that religion is appropriate within the four walls of a house of worship but not on Main Street or Wall Street. The result is an even more naked public square...where religion is viewed as a merely private affair with no public relevance.
These changes explain why some liberals are trying to drastically narrow the natural right to the free exercise of religion by redefining it as the freedom of worship...
Interestingly, this idea that you should be free to believe what you want in private, but not to act upon it in public is not entirely new. In fact, there were some already holding a similar view in 18th century America! Starting in the late 1760s , an "evangelical revival swept across the Virginia countryside," according to Henry Mayer, author of A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic (p. 157). This "evangelical revival" started with "itinerant Baptist preachers [spreading] their message from family to family" (p. 157), and the "ranks of the converted swelled." In fact, "the number of separate Baptist congregations climbed from six to sixty in less than a decade" (p. 159). However, Virginia's elites were not generally thrilled with this development. Representative of these elites was the colony's attorney general, John Randolph. As Mayer tells us,"'the private Opinions of Men are not the Objects of Law or Government,' Randolph declared. 'While they keep to themselves, they may enjoy them without Interruption from the civil Magistrate. But if they go about publickly preaching and inculcating their Errors, raising Factions tending to disturb the publick Peace, or utter Doctrines which in their nature are subversive of all Religion or Morality,' they deserve punishment" (p. 162). As a consequence of views such as Randolph's among those in authority, "in county after county...the authorities jailed preachers and countenanced violent reprisals against them" (p. 158).
Of course, the views of those in the 18th century establishment and those of today's progressive elites are not quite identical--Virginia's 18th century elites were keen on maintaining an existing religious orthodoxy, while today's elites want to enforce a rather different political/ideological orthodoxy that celebrates some things--like absolute sexual freedom--which their 18th century precursors would have abhorred. Nevertheless, this basic notion--that religious belief should remain the mere "private Opinions of Men"--is essentially the same, and, I would argue, pose a nearly identical threat to true religious freedom.
Statute of "Religious Liberty" in Philadelphia. Image from Wikimedia Commons.