I Ain't Worried

A couple of days ago I got an email from the Barna Group asking me to participate in a survey of clergy about religious freedom.  Religious freedom has been at the core of a lot of news lately, thanks in large part to the SCOTUS decision in the Hobby Lobby case, and so it's pretty clear why people might want to find out what actual church leaders think about it.
What occurred to me as I worked through the survey was that I don't actually think very much about it, at least not in terms of fearing for mine.  I am thankful for it, I mourn for those who do not have it, but I do not feel that my government is anywhere near impinging upon my relationship with God or my religious observances.
Of course, even though I am a big fan of the Law of Moses, I'm a bit of a libertine when it comes to the morality that they imply.  I feel that the law is primarily designed to keep us from hurting each other, and as such it is admirable and perhaps as near to perfect as one can get.  However, when one expands beyond the scope of injurious behavior, into the realm of morality, things get a bit hazy.  Valid Christian societies have strong disagreements about what morality is required by the commandment: "thou shalt not kill."  Some (including my own tradition) say it means murder and allows for killing on the field of battle or in self defense or in the enforcement of laws.  But the Anabaptist tradition take a stricter path and say that Jesus' ethic of non-violence and self sacrifice requires pacifism, no ifs, ands or buts.
We have had a lot of discussion about what exactly constitutes adultery and/or fornication, with regard to which the Levitical code actually provides quite a few loopholes that we modern folk would certainly find problematic (sex with servants, rape of unmarried minors etc.).  While it was rather rigorously enforced in ancient times for females, men could get away with an awful lot...
But I digress, I was talking about religious freedom and a Barna Survey.  What struck me about the survey was the fact that I assume there are some, perhaps even many clergy people who did not find the most fear-ridden paranoid questions fear-ridden or paranoid.  Which means that there are probably a goodly number of people who are deeply concerned that the government might actually outlaw Christian faith.  The problem that I see in this country, more than anything, is that Christian faith is actually privileged above other faith traditions (or the absence of a faith tradition) and has been so for such a great long time that we have gotten rather used to our privilege.  Thus when we find ourselves on equal footing (which is the way it is actually supposed to be: anti-establishment clause), we feel a bit of a pinch.
What worries me more than attack from Muslims or even Atheists is a breakdown in the actual freedom of religion in favor of a continuation of this Christian privilege.  Because I'm a lot more worried that other Christians will tell me what I have to believe about Jesus or how I need to interpret scripture than I am worried that the secularists are going to tell me that I can't believe in God any more.
I have seen recently, the rather unfortunate bully tactics that we Christians can use against those who disagree with us, and I don't think it makes Jesus happy.  I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion if that's your choice.  There are always those who are going to decide that God is dead, or was never alive in the first place, that's fair enough.  I disagree with them, the same way I disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists about the nature of a Trinitarian God and the Incarnation.  I disagree with them the same way I disagree with Roman Catholics about the mystery of the Lord's Supper or with Baptists about the sacrament of Baptism being once and for all.  I disagree with them the same way I disagree with some of my fellow Presbyterians about the interpretation of Scripture or the appropriate expressions of righteousness and the way in which we live out our faith in the world.
Which is to say that I value their freedom to be wrong, and I will defend that freedom, unless their wrongness starts to infringe on my freedom to be wrong, or right, or anywhere in between.