When a Catholic archbishop of San Francisco decided to withhold communion from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) because of her support for legal abortion, there were some odd responses.

Twitter was filled with comments about it alleged violation separation of church and state, as well as calls for tax churches. The famous theologian Whoopi Goldberg opined for Viewto the audience that “it’s not your job, man. That’s not your decision to make.”

Who, please (assuming the word “pray” does not violate the separation of church and state), makes these decisions for the church? The politicians? Individuals, who are free to join other churches with doctrines more to their liking, or no religious body at all?

None of these reactions is the result of the Catholic Church favoring the legal protection of unborn children from abortion as a matter of public policy and social justice – it is – but because the authorities nuns have exercised their judgment on participating in a private ritual, in which many of the detractors do not believe, in a non-governmental setting.

It would seem unsportsmanlike to dunk on random Twitter users and marginally political celebrities for confused hot takes. But then The Associated Press had that Publish on the policies of a Christian university institution: “A private Christian university plans to strictly limit the rights of free expression of its students in matters of sexuality and gender, from their behavior to what they wear and what they can say on campus or online, according to published reports.”

Such restrictions have been quite common in religious schools throughout the country’s history. Today the attendance of these places is entirely voluntary. It can also be said that secular institutions run by the state and directly funded by taxpayers’ funds have orthodoxies and rules “about sexuality and gender, from how ‘students’ behave to what they wear and what they can say on campus or online”.

There are deep religiously motivated political and political differences in America. But it’s also true that a relatively truncated understanding of religious freedom is gaining ground, as people who don’t know much about religion want to tell these institutions how to govern themselves, citing concepts that have traditionally been used to support religious freedom.

It’s completely upside down. And it actually encourages illiberal traditionalist tendencies. If someone’s values ​​must ultimately prevail, one might ask, why not mine?