Religious freedom

Religious freedom is under attack these days.  The immediate question is of course, "In an age of tolerance, how can such a claim be made?"  It is this demand of tolerance from our culture that is causing the problem.  As yet there are few legal restrictions on religion.  There is one crucial one that I will mention in a moment.  Tolerance in its truest form is to allow people to believe what they wish without forcing others to believe as we do.  (This, it should be noted, is the real sense of the first amendment)  In its more modern form, tolerance is the idea that a person's belief is irrelevant to the rest of the world, thus it is not open to censure, nor is it allowed to influence others. 
To start, this is a very ignorant stance.  The mere fact that we have multiple political parties with differing beliefs illusrates this point perfectly.  Whether Democrat, Republican, or any other strain, adherents to a political party view their beliefs as true, others as wrong, and each side does its best to win the day.  All of life functions this way.  We believe what we believe, whether it be in science, business, art, and every sphere of life.  At times it is clearer than others, but such an idea is always present.  Where would science be if scientists didn't debate issues.  How well would business function if everyone were allowed to approach their work however they saw fit?  How would anyone choose, for example, a piece of art to sit in the town square if no one was allowed debate on what was proper?
So why is religion and religious-like belief treated any differently?  It is partly because deep down most people in our culture who claim such a stance believe that any religious idea is bogus anyway.  I would argue that this is true of a large number of adherents to the various religions.  There is some sense in this, because if none of what we believe is true, then there is no reason for us to try and change anyone else, or to help our culture reflect our religious values.
Regardless of the specific religion, There are broad implications to each belief structure.  If one's belief is that all babies should be destroyed except for a few born under specific circumstances, then that person would promote that in a larger societal context.  If one's belief is the opposite, that all babies should be allowed to be born and prosper as much as possible, then obviously they will try and promote that.  To claim to believe something and yet do nothing about it is a falsehood with which our culture is far too comfortable.  If you believe a building is on fire, what kind of person would you be if you took no steps to remedy the situation simply because others disagreed?  That would be ludicrous.  I am a Christian and because of this, I believe that Jesus Christ offers the only way to know God and to be saved from our sinful selves.  If I am right, when the final judgement occurs, what would we think of a person who knew Jesus Christ all along, and yet did not share with those around them because of some notion of tolerance?  Hindsight would indeed be 20/20 and we would not think well of such a person.  This is not a redressing of Pascal's wager but a reminder that if we believe that what we believe has consequence for the world at large, we would be a truly deplorable person to not somehow impact the world according to those beliefs.
This has led to one of the few concrete instances of a law limiting the freedom of religion.  Not surprisingly, this law centers around money.  It is law that non-profits (including religious centers) are barred from political activism or they will lose their non-profit status and be obliged to pay taxes as a religious entity.  While there certainly is room for debate about whether churches should pay taxes anyway, this is nto the point in question.  The point here is that churches are essentially instructed by the state to remain silent on political issues.  This at the very least should offend our idea of constitutional freedoms.  But it also implies that whatever political convictions may arise from our religious beliefs have no inherent right to a place in the political sphere, in fact it denies in a way that religions should have political implications. 
And this is the true attack on religious freedom, the idea that religion is not allowed to speak a word to the culture at large, and that it can only speak to an individual's personal life.  Such a religion is not worth having.  Such a belief would only set up such hypocrisy in a person that most of us would find objectionable.
So am I then dooming us to religious intolerance?  Are we destined for holy war?  I don't believe so.  If we can truly love each other enough to both share our faith, speak our mind, and yet be respectful, then we will more appropriately be practicing tolerance.  Just because people disagree, or even find another's actions to be wrong, does not mean that there is hatred.

Gay Marriage Debate

In the debate on gay marriage, one side is constantly accused of trying to push its morality and ideology on the other. What the accusing side fails to realize is that they are in fact doing the exact same thing.  A common question usually brought up is "What does it have to do with anyone else, this is an issue of freedom?"  While that may be true on the surface, upon further investigation, we discover that it is not true at all.  When gay marriage is approved in various contexts, the actual marriage of same-sex couples has very little to do with anyone outside that couple.  But, by granting that relationship the legal status of marriage, people are unwillingly forced into accepting that relationship whether they agree with it or not.  Should a faith-based institution such as a hospital or social service center be forced to give healthcare coverage to a homosexual partner?  By doing so, aren't we forcing them to live as if they believe there is nothing wrong with that?  It is not enough to say simply that this is not a moral question.  It very much is a moral question.  Our sexuality and the way we express it is very much wrapped up in our whole life and our attitudes towards God, sin, life, death, right and wrong.
A "live and let live" type of mentality does no good, because a person who truly is moral to the core will live an integrated life in which all of their morals interact with each other and inform each other.  Thus, for the gay marriage supporter, they would be hypocritical if they did not in some way promote the "normalcy" of homosexuality in the hopes that everyone would accept it.  For the opposition, it would be hypocritical to decry homosexuality as a sin and yet treat a homosexual partner as a spouse.
Perhaps the only real solution that satisfies a notion of American freedom as well as the Christian ideal of not judging those outside the church is to allow for people not to accept homosexual unions as valid.  Practically this would mean that employers could choose not to cover the spouses in such a case.  Of course, they can also choose not to cover heterosexual spouses either.
We have a horrible notion in America that people have a right to believe what they believe as long as it does not impact their dealings with anyone else.  Frankly, that is stupid.  If you elect a Christian to a political post, it is wrong to ask them to set aside their religious convictions while in that office.  If our religion is worth anything (whatever that may be) it has to impact all areas of our life, including the political, economic, and social spheres.  What the constitution says is that as a nation, we will not choose one religion over another and force everyone else to follow it.  It does not ban religion from the political sphere, for to do so would require all politicians to become less of a person and separate their beliefs from their actions, which, if done, means beliefs are worthless.