Fort Worth mayor, council got it right on church’s housing plan. Here’s why | Opinion
The Star-Telegram Editorial Board recently excoriated Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker and the City Council for its support of Mercy Culture Church’s plan to build a rehabilitation center for victims of sex trafficking. The sharpest critique was aimed at Parker’s defense of the religious liberty rights of faith-based organizations and her warning about the danger of government stepping in and telling any religious organization how it is allowed to live out these beliefs. Behind this critique is a fundamental misunderstanding of religious liberty and why protecting this right is essential to maintaining a free, open and flourishing society.
At its core, religious liberty safeguards the right of every individual to seek truth, follow their consciences and live in accordance with their deeply held beliefs. This freedom goes beyond the mere ability to worship; it encompasses the right to express faith openly, educate children according to religious values and live out one’s convictions in public and private life.
Religious liberty is not only about protecting people of faith. A society that defends religious liberty fosters mutual respect and coexistence, even among people with differing worldviews. It prevents the imposition of a single belief system — whether religious or secular — on the entire population, ensuring that minority perspectives are respected and protected.
When religious freedom is compromised, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens other fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and association. By standing for religious liberty, individuals affirm the principle that everyone should be free to think, believe and live without fear of coercion or discrimination.
Furthermore, restricting religious organizations from living out their faith in our city only hurts the city. Our faith-based institutions contribute millions of dollars of social services vital to meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in Fort Worth.
The charge from the Editorial Board that the First Amendment is being used as a free-for-all ignores the facts of this case. Mercy Culture amended its plan to accommodate zoning requirements. While this may not satisfy residents of the Oakhurst neighborhood, it certainly falls within the “reasonable” standard that has traditionally been applied to religious liberty cases. The mayor’s analysis is consistent with the United States Constitution and legal precedent.
The question is not whether one agrees with Mercy Culture or whether the Justice Residence is a good idea. The question is whether governments should have the authority to tell people of faith how we are permitted to live out our religious beliefs. Religious liberty is an inherent right that, according to the Declaration of Independence, is “endowed by our Creator” and not merely granted at the whims of government.
This is why both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions so strongly protect this sacred freedom. It is why the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed religious liberty, establishing decades of legal precedent.
Religious liberty has often been referred to as the first freedom. A government powerful enough to tell Mercy Culture’s members how they can live out their beliefs will soon be a government powerful enough to tell the Star-Telegram what it is permitted to publish. I am confident that the Editorial Board would agree that government at any level has no right telling a newspaper what it can or cannot say. Why, then, does the board mock the protection of these freedoms when they are applied to religious organizations?
Fort Worth residents should be proud that while other big cities might be more cavalier about threats to our cherished freedoms, the place where the west begins is where tyranny goes to die. Parker and the City Council got this one right.
