Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A few days ago, a prominent attorney asked me a question: can religious liberty and the growing demands of government and others occupy the same space? And if not, who wins?
This is, perhaps, not quite the right question.
Dr. Hannibal Lecter, aka "Hannibal the Cannibal" in The Silence of the Lambs asked a more fitting one:
First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?
Most pundits observing what has gone on recently in Arizona and other states regarding same-sex marriage have concluded, "We are witnessing a clash between religious and civil liberties." While many nod their heads in agreement, this analysis is wrong.
The fact is that what the left is demanding now through our courts, through legislatures, and at ballot boxes around the country does not constitute rights at all, or at least not in the historical sense.
This is not a "clash of religious and civil rights." This is a clash of freedom and untenable, outrageous demands.
The left is seeking not only equal status to enumerated constitutional rights, but a position of superiority. When you have "rights" that have been magically pulled from the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution such as the right to an abortion that compete with fundamental rights not created by our government, but rather endowed by our Creator, the contest should be quite simple. But when you dislodge the bedrock of our culture, found in our First Amendment, you create a sinkhole of relativism and totalitarianism and anarchy.
There is something much, much deeper going on here.
Same-sex marriage is a trial balloon of sorts, being used to test how far Americans will allow their consciences to be suppressed by the State.
If Christians can be compelled to lend a craft to something their conscience objects to, what cant they be compelled to participate in? Were talking about precedent; and the cases before us are bellwether test cases about whether private actors can be forcibly mandated to go against their conscience" ("Of Consciences and Cakes," First Things, Feb. 20, Andrew Walker).
A couple years ago, the Health and Human Services Contraceptive and Abortifacient Mandate served the same purpose, leading the way to where we now are. When the State can get away with abusive behavior and strong-arm tactics toward even The Little Sisters of the Poor, let alone privately owned businesses such as Hobby Lobby, then statists know that the time is ripe to take another big step.
This battle is much bigger than anybody thinks it is. We cannot see the forest for the trees. We are not witnessing a clash of rights; we are in the middle of a massive social experiment. This is a test for the viability of incremental totalitarianism. Nothing less.
In a kind of Cloward-Piven Strategy, the assault or "test," or however you want to identify it is occurring on many different fronts and on many different levels simultaneously. In addition to same-sex marriage and the health care mandate(s), we have the IRS targeting of conservative groups, constant Second Amendment attacks, voter photo ID initiatives labeled as racist by the DOJ, and state initiatives to curb abortions labeled a "War on Women."
Perhaps most chilling is the way that federalism is being undermined from within the states themselves. State judges are now routinely overturning the expressed will of the people, acting unilaterally to impose novel viewpoints on entire state populations.
The fifty states, which are supposed to be laboratories for experimentation conducting trial runs, so to speak are being stripped of that function.
Articles: Totalitarianism and the Silence of the Lambs
The Bible is wrong. That's why the First Amendment prohibits States from adopting religious laws even if a majority of citizens vote for it.
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
You survived the end of slavery, integration, and gay rights. You'll survive gay marriage.
banning same-sex marriage is not necessarily a religious law...
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
banning same-sex marriage is not necessarily a religious law...
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
what do you call banning same-sex marriage, if not dictating beliefs to others???
banning same-sex marriage is not necessarily a religious law...
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
what do you call banning same-sex marriage, if not dictating beliefs to others???
what do you call banning murder if not dictating beliefs to others...?
They call it "religious freedom", even though it is definitely NOT based on religious dogma.what do you call banning same-sex marriage, if not dictating beliefs to others???banning same-sex marriage is not necessarily a religious law...
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
Republican logic: Gay marriage = murder.banning same-sex marriage is not necessarily a religious law...
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
what do you call banning same-sex marriage, if not dictating beliefs to others???
what do you call banning murder if not dictating beliefs to others...?
what do you call banning same-sex marriage, if not dictating beliefs to others???
what do you call banning murder if not dictating beliefs to others...?
Protecting the rights of people who might be murdered.
what do you call banning murder if not dictating beliefs to others...?
Protecting the rights of people who might be murdered.
then how about protecting the rights of people whose society might be murdered....?
banning same-sex marriage is not necessarily a religious law...
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
what do you call banning same-sex marriage, if not dictating beliefs to others???
what do you call banning murder if not dictating beliefs to others...?
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
You thought that huh? Dumbass.
i thought you weren't supposed to dictate beliefs to others in America....
You thought that huh? Dumbass.
you're the Dumbass....you're one of those idiotic liberals who thinks the Courts should dictate important social issues from the bench....a totalitarian solution...
when the American people are allowed to vote for or against things like abortion or gay marriage in their own States.....that's not 'dictating'.....that's democracy in action...
Protecting the rights of people who might be murdered.
then how about protecting the rights of people whose society might be murdered....?
None of us own society. It's not your property, nor mine.
