Excellent piece. Just one comment: As a believing Christian I don’t just think “it’s not too much to ask for them to explain how those beliefs apply to a particular situation.” I believe I have a duty to share how and why my beliefs apply.
Have you read White Christian Privilege: The Illusion of Religious Equality in America by Khyati Joshi. She has a chapter on religious freedom court cases. She narrates the progress of religious freedom very differently from someone like David French who says regularly that there has been a near straight line toward more religious freedom from the mid 20th century.
One of her main points is that even the concept of religious freedom might have a bias toward a Christian (and Protestant) view of what religion is. And she suggests that the 20th century precedents that have narrowly defined what religion is, may not be harming Christians in the long term as Christianity is less dominant and less understood by most people.
She is not a lawyer…but I thought that getting her different narrative around religious freedom was a helpful counter narrative.
I've now finished chapter one of Berg's book. Pretty clear he's going to argue that embrace of religious freedom means supporting it for ALL religious groups (and maybe those without religion) while finding ways of supporting marginalized communities like LGBTQ+ groups.
Excellent piece. Just one comment: As a believing Christian I don’t just think “it’s not too much to ask for them to explain how those beliefs apply to a particular situation.” I believe I have a duty to share how and why my beliefs apply.
Have you read White Christian Privilege: The Illusion of Religious Equality in America by Khyati Joshi. She has a chapter on religious freedom court cases. She narrates the progress of religious freedom very differently from someone like David French who says regularly that there has been a near straight line toward more religious freedom from the mid 20th century.
One of her main points is that even the concept of religious freedom might have a bias toward a Christian (and Protestant) view of what religion is. And she suggests that the 20th century precedents that have narrowly defined what religion is, may not be harming Christians in the long term as Christianity is less dominant and less understood by most people.
She is not a lawyer…but I thought that getting her different narrative around religious freedom was a helpful counter narrative.
The "freedom" topic is always tricky. How do we tell that the freedom of one is not infringing the freedom of others?
I've now finished chapter one of Berg's book. Pretty clear he's going to argue that embrace of religious freedom means supporting it for ALL religious groups (and maybe those without religion) while finding ways of supporting marginalized communities like LGBTQ+ groups.