The Columbus Dispatch

Trump’s baked-in support not hard to explain

- HUGH HEWITT Hugh Hewitt, a Washington Post contributi­ng columnist, hosts a nationally syndicated radio show.

President Donald Trump’s enduring support among evangelica­l Christians and Mass-attending Catholics befuddles many of his critics. “How could a Christian accept (some presidenti­al action or statement)?” is now a trope. The genuinely confused should realize that for millions of voters, religious liberty remains the overarchin­g issue of the day, the alpha and omega of whether Trump gets a nod of approval or at least a pass. Most of those voters are very well aware that religious liberty is on the Supreme Court’s docket this term.

The Supreme Court will soon consider the religious liberty of Jack Phillips in Masterpiec­e Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state of Colorado has said that Masterpiec­e Cakeshop owner Phillips’ refusal to create custom wedding cakes celebratin­g same-sex wedding ceremonies violates the state’s law prohibitin­g discrimina­tion on the basis of sexual orientatio­n — despite Phillips’ policy of refusing to create other confection­s that collide with his faith, including cakes containing alcohol or celebratin­g Halloween or atheism.

The case will draw huge attention because it is at the intersecti­on of so many controvers­ies. But the emotions it elicits shouldn’t obscure its connection to a large portion of Trump’s core support: conservati­ve people of faith.

Evangelica­ls and Massattend­ing Catholics gave the president healthy majorities when they voted last fall, and largely that support has not wavered. For those wondering why, it comes down to the issue at the core of Masterpiec­e Cakeshop: Will Americans be allowed to practice their religious beliefs without fear of ruin from secular absolutist­s? In the view of these voters, elites believe every knee must bend to their secular creed, not just on matters regarding sexual intimacy but also on issues of when life begins and when death ought to be optional.

Many people of faith are convinced that their ability to believe, proclaim and practice their genuine faith conviction­s is in danger, not just of ridicule, but also of punishment. They hear themselves routinely — and unfairly — compared to racist bigots. They know that racial bigotry in the marketplac­e is illegal; indeed, they agree with the laws that make it so, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and believe those laws are righteous and constituti­onal.

Moreover, the vast majority of evangelica­l and Catholic leaders assert that they, and the president, are not homophobic and that their positions on same-sex marriage do not mean they are anti-gay.

They expect that, absent a new “test” emerging from the case now before the court, their civil right of free exercise of religion will be erased, quietly and quickly, from the constituti­onal canon.

That fear drives a lot of politics these days.

Why do evangelica­ls hang in with the president despite his all-too-frequent unChristia­n bouts of public disdain toward others, attacks at odds with the gospel? Because his judicial appointmen­ts — the source of the ultimate protection of faith and the free-exercise clause — are not only solid, they are also better than those of either President Bush.

For many millions of people of faith, Trump is the last line of defense preventing their having to choose between their religious beliefs and full participat­ion in the community and in business.

As the Supreme Court returns to work, understand that a lot of the politics of today are driven by its decisions in the past and fear about its decisions in the future. This remains a deeply religious country, and many of its most ardent believers distrust the federal courts and elite opinion-makers to such a degree that they will make common cause with those who will protect their freedom of conscience. The right to “free exercise” isn’t just one of many important rights to them; it is the central one by far. Figure that truth into your political analysis, and a lot more becomes clear.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States