Campaign against religious freedom: Orwellian? Demonic? Both?

A “secular Inquisition” takes up arms.

Mocking freedom of religion, to weaken your commitment to it. (Image: 21alive Indianapolis)
Mocking freedom of religion, to weaken your commitment to it. (Image: 21alive Indianapolis)

A campaign against religious freedom – the central purpose for which America came into being – had been underway for some time before the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case, on 26 June.  But the campaign went into overdrive with the news of that ruling, and it’s becoming increasingly furious and determined.

The principal method of the anti-freedom campaign is owning the terms in which it is discussed.  The anti-freedom contingent insists, in essence, that what traditionalist Christians want is not legitimate freedom, but a license to hurt people.

Fascist collectivism always makes its arguments in these terms, and the campaign against religious freedom is no different.  It picks a specific demographic target and vilifies the members of it, based on a garbled and inverted premise about social harm. Continue reading “Campaign against religious freedom: Orwellian? Demonic? Both?”


There may not always be an England

Q.  When does the British government subsidize a TV channel that carries the rants of anti-gay religious fanatics?

A.  When the TV station is run by Islamist extremists.

OK, that one was a softball.  But it’s worth pointing out a telling contrast in the British government’s stance on people’s right to think unapproved thoughts about homosexuality.

Here is what Mr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, a speaker who has been featured on Britain’s Ramadan TV, has to say about gays:

Read the full post at Hot Air

DO we have the right to disobey Islamic law?

Congress shall make no law.

My Green Room colleague Laura Curtis asked yesterday whether we should have the right to disobey Islamic law, and her post understandably got a lot of interest.

I would like to suggest that we need to pose the question a different way, because how we answer it will depend on how it is asked.  I believe the correct question is: Do we have the right to disobey Islamic law?

That’s how the philosophers of America’s founding would have put the question. Continue reading “DO we have the right to disobey Islamic law?”

Foster parents wanted. Must endorse homosexuality.

If we want you to believe something, we’ll tell you what it is.

Presumably, that’s how the advertisements will read from now on.  Britain’s High Court has ruled that a Pentecostal couple who have fostered young children for years will no longer be allowed to do so because – when asked; they didn’t bring it up themselves – they told a social worker they could not tell children under the age of 10 that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable. (H/t: The Weekly Standard.)

The basis for this ruling is Britain’s set of Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make it an offense to “discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.” By the definition implied in this ruling, Continue reading “Foster parents wanted. Must endorse homosexuality.”

Interfaith Foxholes

Repealing DADT will sentence us to the global curse of separate foxholes.

As Congress this week considers language for the 2011 defense appropriation bill that would effectively repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, two current lawsuits frame the reality of what this matter is and is not about. One is that of Air Force Major Margaret Witt, who lived discreetly with a same-sex partner while serving as a flight nurse. In 2003, her lesbian partnership was brought to the attention of her command; in 2004, two years short of eligibility for military retirement, she was dismissed from the service.

She brought suit against the Air Force in 2006. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on her case in 2008, issuing an opinion that has so far received little media attention. The ruling’s Solomonic proposition is that, while the 1993 law passed by Congress is the law of the land, the military’s application of it requires a demonstration of more than mere homosexual practice on the part of a servicemember. To justify dismissal, according to the Ninth Circuit, the military must show that in an individual case, homosexual behavior creates a problem for unit cohesion or military discipline. (As commentators point out, this ruling, among its other oddities, has effect for the U.S. military only in the Western states overseen by the Ninth Circuit Court.)

The Obama administration declined to appeal that verdict in 2009. And I believe most servicemembers would regret Major Witt’s dismissal anyway. Continue reading “Interfaith Foxholes”