We don’t think we ought to “shrug it off.” Of course, no one has a natural right to pray at an inauguration. And no one is arguing that Evangelicals or Catholics or anyone else must have a designated slot on the dais. The issue is rather a point that one of us (George) has argued for years: The end result of the sexual revolution is that those who see marriage as a conjugal relationship—the union of husband and wife—and believe sexual conduct outside the marital bond to be morally unworthy, will come to be viewed as bigots, the equivalent of racists. And that has dire implications for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
I say “hear, hear” to this and would add one other thought. I think Anderson missed the gravity of what happened last Thursday. A sitting president removed a pastor from a public ceremony because of this pastor’s Christian views. If this trampling of religious liberty were a one-off thing, then maybe we would be having a different conversation. But it isn’t. This president has done more to undermine religious liberty for Christians in this country than any other in my lifetime (e.g., see HHS mandate). In this context, I can hardly imagine why anyone would be admonishing the likes of Moore and Mohler and not a president who has just ruled Christianity out of the bounds of rational discourse.