I’m so sick of hearing rhetoric about religious freedom supposedly being “under attack” in America. I don’t see that as a productive, or even true, framing of the cultural divide going on in present sociopolitical discussions.

A prominent ecclesiastical leader in my faith recently spoke at a “Freedom Festival” in Provo this weekend, and he said “it has become popular to argue that the freedom of religion is really only the right to worship rather than the right to freely exercise your faith in your daily life—as if religion should be kept in the closet or some other private place.” I don’t think this is true. The popular arguments I’ve seen are not suggesting that one’s spiritual life and journey ought to be hidden, shameful, or “kept in the closet.”

(Interesting choice of words there, anyway—given that it’s typically the staunchly conservative religious crowds who implicitly endorse unhealthy “closet” living by telling their LGBTQIA brothers and sisters that their sexual identity is wrong, sinful, unnatural, ungodly, or deviant.)

This leader continued by saying: “There are concerted efforts to shame and intimidate believers who have traditional moral values and to suppress religious viewpoints and practices regarding marriage, family, gender and sexuality.” Wow! What a gross misrepresentation.

Here’s the thing. Anyone can believe whatever the hell they want to. But beliefs have consequences. Some of those consequences can be good—even if the belief itself is rooted in falsehood. For example, you could, for a moment, believe that the floor is made of lava, and the consequence might be a fun and silly game; or you could believe, for a few years, that Santa Claus is real, and the consequence might be a wholesome and exciting tradition. However, other beliefs have negative consequences. For example, you could believe that only straight couples get to Heaven. I’ve never been to Heaven or Hell, so admittedly I can’t say with certainty whether you’re right or wrong. But I can say that if your afterlife is strictly heteronormative, then your theology is harmful. Sure, your theology may be “true” (though I suspect it probably isn’t; if there is a God, I am certain He/She will find a way to exalt all people who are full of love, because love IS exaltation), but whether it’s “true” or not, it’s bringing bad fruit. It’s an ugly, ignorant doctrine, rooted in fear and a lack of empathy, and it’s leading your members to kick their LGBTQIA children out of their homes, which then pushes many of those kids into lives of homelessness, drugs, and suicide.

I have NOT seen concerted efforts to shame people for being religious. You can be as religious as you want in this country. For the most part, from what I’ve seen, our culture embraces a spiritual yearning for the transcendent, the sacred, and the divine. But again, beliefs have consequences, and there IS a concerted effort to push back against some of the negative consequences of outdated and hateful beliefs. That’s not an attack on religious freedom. That’s calling people out for the harm they’re causing. There’s a difference.

Now, maybe we will agree to disagree on whether this “attack on religious freedom” is actually happening. Maybe you think it is. Fine. But even if it is, I still don’t think that framing this conversation as an “attack” is a healthy, productive way to talk about it. When religious leaders tell their congregations “hey, we’re under attack,” it’s wartime language. And therefore it will incite defensiveness, divisiveness, aggression, anger, and counterattacks. Cultural warmongering isn’t the answer here.

If you’re a Christian, and you really, honestly believe that you’re “under attack” in our emerging progressive culture regarding sexual ethics and identity, then remember what your original religious leader said about resolving conflict: turn the other cheek. Mourn with those that mourn. Pray for your enemies.

Once we all decide to take that approach instead of going to war, we’ll learn a lot; we’ll listen a lot; we’ll grow a lot. But if we give in to the “us vs them” rhetoric—if we choose to go to war—then by definition, everyone will lose. Because that’s what war is.