A Random Sampling of Progressive Opinion on Religious Liberty

 

SCOTUSLest you think that I was overly alarmist in my earlier post on Obergefell’s threat to religious liberty, consider this. I wrote a slightly longer version of the piece for City Journal, which was then posted to RealClearPolitics — so it attracted a fair number of eyeballs outside of the conservative bubble. Here are some of the comments I got:

  • Religion is the problem, not gay marriage. Religion is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that threatens the civil liberties of everyone. Religion is as pervasive as pornography in this country, but much more harmful to our culture.
  • If the institution of marriage is removed from its unnatural cloud of accompanying religious magic . . . it is a right, like any other. As such it should by law available to ALL citizens. In THIS country at very least.
  • I think it’s always dangerous to defend anything based on religious belief.
  • It’s a “threat to religious liberty” only if you think that people should be free to use their religion as an excuse to screw others.
  • There are so many parallels with the 1960’s civil rights movement it is hard for any rational person to fathom how those on the “pro-religious” freedom side expect history to view their backward cause.

Progressives feel momentum on their side and nothing will get in their way. If new rights can be invented by the judiciary, then old rights — like the free exercise of religion — can be just as easily interpreted into oblivion.

There are 19 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_1008534 Member
    user_1008534
    @Ekosj

    Yep. If people know any quotation from Marx it is “religion is the opiate of the masses.”

    • #1
  2. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Was this outcome not obvious enough so as to make support of SSM irreconcilable with a love of liberty even if SSM is in and of itself a good thing? We can wish it were otherwise, but it’s just that — wishing.

    • #2
  3. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    I keep saying it. EO law needs to be everybodies new best friend.

    • #3
  4. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Adam,

    Nowhere in the Constitution is the word marriage. There is nothing close to it. However, as we well know, in the first enumerated right of the Bill of Rights are the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“.

    As the very first enumerated right is expressly about Religion, I think it a massively higher priority that the court attend to this right rather than an absurd on its face redefinition of the 1,000 year old definition of Marriage by inventing a heretofor unknown right nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

    Given the intellectual hermaphrodites that exist on the present Court, I’m not holding my breath.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
  5. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Churches in Europe, for the most,part are museums. That is progress comrade. I hope to be in heaven before that happens here.

    • #5
  6. Robert McReynolds Inactive
    Robert McReynolds
    @RobertMcReynolds

    PHCheese:Churches in Europe, for the most,part are museums. That is progress comrade. I hope to be in heaven before that happens here.

    Or they have been turned into apartments, no kidding. Here in Maryland, my wife and I found one that has been turned into an antique store–how fitting right?

    Anyone who denied that this was the desired result of the homosexual marriage movement is either a liar or a very serious case of denial. There was no other outcome but to take this ruling and move on to completely pushing Christianity into the closet that many homosexuals think they crawled out of.

    • #6
  7. LilyBart Inactive
    LilyBart
    @LilyBart

    How can letting gays marry hurt you?

    Well, now we know.

    • #7
  8. LilyBart Inactive
    LilyBart
    @LilyBart

    So, when Disney, United Air Lines et al publicly celebrated this decision, do they mean to communicate that they are supportive of the destruction of religious freedom?

    They should be made to tell us if they support this too.

    • #8
  9. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    LilyBart:So, when Disney, United Air Lines et al publicly celebrated this decision, do they mean to communicate that they are supportive of the destruction of religious freedom?

    They should be made to tell us if they support this too.

    Indeed.

    • #9
  10. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @IWalton

    LilyBart:So, when Disney, United Air Lines et al publicly celebrated this decision, do they mean to communicate that they are supportive of the destruction of religious freedom?

    They should be made to tell us if they support this too.

    They won’t until the mob works up a good head of steam.

    • #10
  11. lesserson Member
    lesserson
    @LesserSonofBarsham

    Yeah, this is going to end well…

    • #11
  12. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Now that I’ve read your longer piece in CJ…dang. Everything within the state; nothing outside the state. All that is not proscribed will be prescribed. If we can’t disagree over something as fundamentally human, philosophical, metaphysical, and religious as human sexuality, then there is no area in which we will be allowed to think for ourselves.

    • #12
  13. user_348483 Coolidge
    user_348483
    @EHerring

    The slippery slope to hell-attacking God and believers.

    • #13
  14. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    #Lovewins turns #NoH8 into #YesH8

    • #14
  15. Ralphie Member
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    It isn’t just the religious, it is the non religious that also have a problem with the concept of gay marriage, as well as some gays. The idea that all women are represented by Hillary, or all blacks by Jesse Jackson, assumes that all gays think this ruling was a good idea.

    A few years back, Stephen Carter wrote a book titled “Integrity”. From memory, I think he identified a few things that he defined as a person with integrity. They a.) take time to discern an issue that they care about b.) make a statement of belief, c.) take action that reinforces that belief even at a cost, that is a risk of losing something. He had a few caveats that it be for good, and that it wasn’t to be confused with honesty.

    Anyway, what the dissenting justices were pointing out was a war the integral.

    I don’t see how religion is a problem when there are Christian churches that welcome gays. Maybe you are not a catholic.

    Then again, mom and dad are a problem when you are a teen and want to do whatever makes you happy.

    I’m waiting to see the gay lobby take on the Muslims on this issue. Gays are bullies. Bullies always attack the weak.

    • #15
  16. Ralphie Member
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    What if a Christian was partners with a Muslim or Gay who opposed gay marriage? Would only the Christian be prosecuted if a wedding cake were refused?

    food for thought.

    • #16
  17. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Ralphie, let them eat cake. Couldn’t pass it up.

    • #17
  18. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @Manny

    Not only do progressives feel momentum, they never quit. They boo’d God at their last convention and there is no doubt they have an animus against traditional religion. Their battle against religion has just started and is not just in the short term. This will define the left for generations to come.

    • #18
  19. Freesmith Inactive
    Freesmith
    @Freesmith

    I want to remind fellow conservatives and traditionalists, especially those who wanted to be left alone, to not hurt anyone and to get along with their lives, that we were in a culture war – and we lost. We lost because we didn’t want to win.

    The other side wanted to win, and so it did. Now they are about to enjoy the rewards which follow putting one’s enemy to flight – slaughtering unarmed, fleeing soldiers and despoiling the opposition’s ordnance and supplies. This is when the majority of the losing side’s casualties occur.

    Power abhors a vacuum. There are only two sides in a battle, not three. You are either on offense or you are on defense, and if you are defending you are losing. There is no option to stand aside. You either rule or you are ruled. Period.

    Progressives and Leftists know that. They always have. Trotsky:

    “You may not be in interested in (culture) war, but (culture) war is interested in you.”

    • #19

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.