As most of you know, and as has been comment on in this blog, there’s been a lot of news lately about the Religious Liberty “Restoration” Act recently passed in Indiana. The news included discussion of the federal Religious Liberty Restoration Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, and how the Indiana act is different.

But there is a fundamental problem here: the assumption implicit in the name of the Religious Liberty “Restoration” Act that religious liberty has been somehow in disrepair.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religious liberty has been alive and well in the United States for a long time, and has been defended vigorously not only by our political superstructure, but also in the judicial system. The notion that religious liberties need “restoring” is  both preposterous, but more importantly, misleading.

That’s how some Christians get the completely false notion that they are a minority or that their rights our somehow under attack.

I can’t claim authorship for the table below, I found it on the Internet. But it does distinguish nicely between when someone’s religious liberties are and are not being violated.