"Has Ted Cruz’s life or status in society been altered in any way merely because he is a Christian believer?" No? Then he is not a victim of persecution!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz And The False Narrative Of Christian Persecution
By Rick Ungar, June 10, 2015

If you ask Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) about the state of religious freedom in America, you are likely to get an earful on how Christians in this country are being forced to live through some terrible era of religious persecution.

Speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Iowa, Cruz told his audience that “There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage,” and that there is “no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party.”

Really?

Last I checked—which was about five minutes ago—all but 30 (28 Jewish and 2 Muslim) Democrats serving in the United States House of Representatives and Senate identify as Christians.

These numbers might lead a more rational and less politically motivated observer to conclude that there is still quite a bit of room for Christians to be a part of the Democratic Party and its leadership.

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

It is possible that Senator Cruz’s inability to distinguish between legal disagreements and religious persecution may rest in his inability to recognize what persecution in America really looks like?

As Paul Waldman so aptly wrote a few years ago in The American Prospect,

“The impulse to jam that crown of thorns down on your head is a powerful one in politics. It means you’ve achieved the moral superiority of the victim, and the other side must be the victimizer. The problem is that these folks don’t seem to have much of a grasp on what second-class citizenship actually looks like. Last time I checked, nobody was forbidden to vote because they’re a Christian, or not allowed to eat in their choice of restaurants, or forced to use separate water fountains, or even be forbidden by the state to marry the person of their choice. That’s what second-class citizenship is. Having somebody on television call your views retrograde may not be fun, but it doesn’t make you a second-class citizen.”

It seems unlikely that a victim of religious persecution would be permitted to make the statements we hear Ted Cruz utter—in his effort to rally the religious right to his cause —without suffering some form of personal repression or punishment. Can anyone testify to the effort being made by our government to silence Senator Cruz? So far as I can see, he remains completely free to say and do what he wishes, including publicly making fun of a grieving father who has just suffered the loss of his eldest son. Has he been forced to change his religious practices under threat of penalty? Has Ted Cruz’s life or status in society been altered in any way merely because he is a Christian believer?

Further, is it unfair to ask why the cries of religious persecution pouring forth from those now claiming great offense are missing in action when a person of color, or one with a different sexual orientation, is treated with less respect or opportunity? Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Is it not, therefore, a violation of Christian belief to allow a black man in America to be treated differently than a white man in America? Would it not be a violation of Christian belief to view a gay American as something ‘lesser’ than a straight American?

Let me be clear that I sympathize with the Christian baker or flower supplier who feels that being forced to provide their products to a gay wedding violates their religious convictions. Indeed, I agree that nobody should be required by law or otherwise to affirmatively perform an act that is in conflict with a religious conviction that can be legitimately traced to the roots of the religion in question.

I would, however, raise for the discussion the case of a religious Jew whose religion prohibits work, driving, or  even speaking on the phone during the sabbath, being forced to do one or all of the same when his or her employer demands. I can’t help but wonder where the cries of religious persecution are when this type of an event takes place.

In my view, there is a difference between the law providing same sex couples the equal opportunity to marry, which I anticipate the Supreme Court will soon confirm is a right in compliance with our Constitution, and forcing those who do not believe in the same to actively participate in that wedding. While I certainly agree that our Constitution protects the right of a same-sex couple to marry in the same way that I am entitled to such protection, I disagree with the notion that people should be required to commit an act that is in violation of their religious convictions. The decision of a local baker to politely decline to provide a cake for the wedding reception hardly constitutes a denial of a same sex couple’s Constitutional right to marry as they please.

However, these are disagreements that naturally arise and must be resolved when law evolves—and make no mistake, law is always evolving in America, and that is exactly how it should be.

If Christians are truly concerned about the erosion of their own rights and find themselves suffering a persecution complex, I would suggest that they would do better by dropping the drama queen vibe and take a very different approach centered around the concept of each side respecting the rights of the other.

Recognition is the first step towards resolution.

Recognizing that our Founders did not intend for American Christians to dictate the behavior of others simply because that behavior is out of step with Christian beliefs would be a good beginning. Then, those who choose to avail themselves of their rights, such as their right to marry whomever they love, might come to understand that the exercise of these rights need not come at the expense of another by requiring them to do anything that puts them at odds with their own rights and beliefs.
 ...................................................................................................................................................................