Truth Through Persuasion: Why Christians Should Defend Religious Liberty
By Keri Collins
At a moment when university administrators, progressive activist groups, and student organizations are eager to police belief, Christians should be the loudest defenders of religious liberty. Not because all religions are equally true–they are not–and not because truth is relative–it is not–but because religious freedom is not just a constitutional birthright but also the most reliable safeguard for the public practice of Christianity.
The First Amendment is unequivocal: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”1 The framers were not naive. They knew that government power expands quickly and retreats rarely, witnessing state churches, political persecution, coerced conformity, and rulers who presumed authority over conscience. Their answer was not a sanitized public square scrubbed clean of religious expression. It was ordered liberty, a republic in which faith could flourish free from government interference.
The framers understood religious liberty is not a blank check. No serious person argues that constitutional protection extends to terrorism, criminal threats, or violent intimidation. Maintaining public safety is a legitimate function of government. But peaceful worship is a fundamental right that precedes the state and the university administrator. These are not privileges that university administrators grant or revoke at their discretion. Our Constitution recognizes these truths.
For Christians, this is not merely a matter of constitutional principle–it is a matter of biblical faithfulness. Scripture recognizes that authentic faith cannot be coerced. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that “the authorities that exist are established by God,” but also that each person must be “fully convinced in his own mind” on matters of conscience. Christ himself drew the boundary: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”2 Government has a legitimate and limited role, but the conscience does not belong to the state, and certainly not to a university’s diversity office. Thus, truth must persuade rather than compel.
The framers established a republic in which religion could flourish without government interference, in which dissenting and minority faiths could exist alongside the majority without administrative permission. Universities, which claim to be the custodians of free inquiry and open debate, should honor that legacy—not by endorsing any particular faith, but by protecting the freedom of all to gather, pray, preach, and associate without harassment or penalty.
At Harvard, when a student organization challenges another religious group’s right to congregate outdoors, every student who values liberty ought to take notice–regardless of whether they share that group’s theology or sympathize with its politics. The question is not whether we agree with the theology of the people praying. The question is rather whether any group of students has the authority to decide which forms of worship are acceptable. Once that power is claimed, every minority faith on campus becomes vulnerable. Today’s target is someone else’s religion. Tomorrow’s may be yours. While not affirming every religion as equally true, when Christians defend religious liberty for themselves, they must also defend it for everyone.
Conservatives have long understood that a state strong enough to silence your “enemies” is strong enough to silence you. A government empowered to define “acceptable religion” could one day—as both national Democrats and Harvard have often attempted—classify biblical teaching on marriage, sexuality, or the sanctity of life as discriminatory, harmful, or disruptive to campus community standards.
Christians in particular should think carefully before inviting administrators to regulate religious expression, even when those officials are seemingly sympathetic. Institutional power does not dissolve when leadership changes. It is inherited. The regulatory machine created under a friendly administration is available to a hostile one. Powers built to suppress one faith will not sit idle when political winds shift.
Some might say that providing an open forum for expression of all beliefs is an affront to Truth. However, the argument that Christians must seek protection from certain beliefs through political dominance reflects a lack of confidence that Truth will prevail through open engagement. If we bind religious truth to political power, we will subordinate it to forces which it should stand above.
The Constitution of the United States. Smithsonian Books, 2022.
King James Bible. Chadwyck-Healey Ltd, 1996.
Nice piece. I like this one very much.
One quibble related to this sentence:
"At Harvard, when a student organization challenges another religious group’s right to congregate outdoors, every student who values liberty ought to take notice–regardless of whether they share that group’s theology or sympathize with its politics."
If this is a reference to the Harvard Republican Club's post about the Muslim gathering at Quincy House, then it is a mischaracterization of events (as I understand them) to say that the Harvard Republican Club members were, in fact, contesting the Muslims' right to congregate outdoors.
As I heard it, they were there to take photos of the event and were defiantly told that photos were not permitted.
Wasn't this a violation of the Harvard Republican Club's right to Freedom of the Press, which is also enshrined in the First Amendment?
Moreover, as private property, the Quincy courtyard is not open to all who seek to practice their religion. As private property, it is subject to the will of the relevant administrators, who DO, in fact have the right to exclude people from gathering there.
If a posse of Hell's Angels with no Harvard affiliation gathered in the courtyard of Quincy House for a barbecue party, they would be ushered away by security, irrespective of their religious affiliation, on the grounds that they are not members of the Harvard Community at all. They have no absolute right to be in that courtyard, even if their barbecue party is a form of religious worship.
I suspect that a group of Yalies with no Harvard affiliation would also be shown to the gate! ;>)