New York Times columnist and constitutional lawyer David French wants American Christians to head to the polls on Election Day feeling like their future will be secure no matter who wins.
That’s one reason why he partnered with the “Holy Post” podcast on a voter guide video about religious liberty, in which he argues that claims about widespread Christian persecution are unhelpful — and untrue.
“By any reasonable definition, American Christians are not persecuted and the legal protections for religious liberty are stronger than at any time in American history,” he said.
The video, titled “Religious Liberty is NOT in Danger,” resonated with Americans who, in recent years, have raised concerns about the Supreme Court’s consistent support for Christian plaintiffs and the broad scope of federal religious freedom protections.
To members of this camp, religious liberty is not only safe, but actually a bit out of control. They’ve sought to limit faith-based exemptions to laws related to LGBTQ rights, abortion and transgender health care.
But to other Americans, including many more conservative Christians, these efforts to limit the application of laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act represent exactly the kind of persecution that French said people of faith shouldn’t worry about.
That’s why, as the new video spread on social media Thursday, some religious freedom advocates spoke out against it, arguing that religious liberty faces significant threats.
“Religious liberty is quite well protected in the United States. In part because 30 years ago there was a bipartisan consensus on it. That’s how (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) happened. The problem is that with Democrats abandoning that position, RFRA specifically included, while also supporting elimination of the filibuster and court packing, they open the door to a new future that should concern Americans of every faith and no faith at all,” posted Casey Mattox, a constitutional attorney, on X.
Is religious liberty in danger?
In the video, French acknowledged that Christians today do have to navigate faith-related challenges and injustices. If they didn’t, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have heard so many religious freedom cases in recent years.
But what matters to French is that there are laws in place at the state and federal level establishing a baseline of safety and freedom for individual people of faith and for religious organizations.
Those laws ensure that religious Americans can practice their faith freely, participate in public funding programs, advocate for policy changes and take part in any number of other activities in the public square.
“People of faith in the United States enjoy more liberty and more real political power than any faith community in the developed world,” French argued.
If more Christians recognized that, he added, faith-related political debates would be more productive.
“This sense of dread and despair is enflaming the culture wars,” French said.
Some religious freedom advocates, including Mattox, took issue with how French summarized the current state of affairs.
It’s true that a variety of laws protect religious liberty and that the current Supreme Court is sympathetic to religious liberty claims.
But it’s also true that calls to change those laws are growing louder — and that a victory in front of the Supreme Court doesn’t erase the pain of years of persecution, they said.
“I, too, would like to believe that religious liberty is permanently secure. But I am denied that luxury,” Mattox wrote.
Defining religious liberty — and persecution
Part of the conflict between supporters and critics of the French video stems from the fact that members of the two camps are focusing on different aspects of recent religious freedom battles.
French and his supporters are putting more weight on how the battles were resolved — for example, with a Supreme Court win — while critics are more concerned with the lingering threat of future lawsuits and very real possibility of future changes to faith-related laws.
“If we get through four years of President Harris without a significant erosion of religious liberty and without a packed court that will overturn current precedent, and without any federal law trimming RFRA, I will write a lengthy apology about how you were right, David. ... If, though, the Harris years go the way we think they will, I hope you will use your perch to relentlessly attack the intrusions on our religious liberty by your allies in the Harris camp,” wrote Tim Carney, an AEI senior fellow, in a post on X.
Carney and others who pushed back against French’s video would likely feel better about the future of religious liberty if Americans actually agreed on what religious liberty means.
But in reality, its definition is hotly contested, which explains why Vice President Kamala Harris’ support for limiting the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to expand protections for the LGBTQ community is seen as a threat to religious liberty by some and a defense of “true” religious liberty by others, as the Deseret News previously reported.
So is religious liberty in danger? It depends on how you define religious liberty — and what you count as a danger to that right.