By Paul Kengor
Saturday, April 05, 2014
This article first appeared at TheBlaze.com.
Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock, you’ve noticed
the growing clash between religious freedom and issues like same-sex marriage
and forced funding of abortion. Last week, the Supreme Court heard a landmark
case on whether the federal government can compel a business to fund abortion
drugs in defiance of the religious beliefs of the business owner. It’s merely
one such case amid a flurry of lawsuits that even includes the Little Sisters
of the Poor. Or, consider these situations involving gay marriage:
In Oregon, a couple that owns a bakery, the Kleins, are
being sued and called before the state for not making a wedding cake for a
same-sex ceremony. The Kleins note that being forced to make such a cake
against their will would violate their Christian beliefs and freedom of
conscience.
In Colorado, another bakery owner, Jack Phillips, awaits
a possible jail sentence for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
In Washington State,a florist is being prosecuted by the
state’s attorney general for declining to provide flowers for a same-sex
wedding.
In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a Methodist camp meeting
association lost its tax-exempt status for declining its wedding pavilion to
two lesbians for a same-sex ceremony.
In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled against the
owners of Elane Photography, judging that they violated the state’s Human
Rights Act by refusing to take pictures for a same-sex ceremony. The ACLU
opposed Elane Photography, as did one of the justices, who recognized that the ruling
violated Elane’s religious freedom but argued that such is the price of
“citizenship” in America today.
In Massachusetts and Illinois, Catholic Charities, one of
the oldest and most established private adoption agencies in America, has been
forced to cease services because it will not provide adoptive children to gay
couples.
And then there’s any number of figures demonized,
boycotted, picketed, pressured, or fired for expressing their opposition to gay
marriage: the president of Chick-fil-A, the owner of Barilla pasta, Craig James
of Fox Sports, or Arizona’s governor.
These are merely a few of many examples. All involve
religious believers invoking their sacred First Amendment rights, only to have
those rights rejected by those describing themselves as “liberal” and
professing “diversity” and “tolerance.” In truth, you are not free to disagree
with liberals on this issue. They won’t let you. They will compel you. They
will see you in court, in bankruptcy, maybe even in jail.
Liberals tolerate only what they agree with.
But what’s really going on here? What’s the bigger
picture? Well, these actions of liberals/progressives aren’t a surprise when
you delve deeper into the logic of their ideology. Consider:
Liberals/progressives have a hierarchy of rights. They
don’t look at competing rights in a pluralist system in the typical way that
we’ve long been accustomed to in America. For instance, Americans
typically—through the political and judicial process—have carefully sought to
balance competing rights: property rights, civil rights, religious liberty,
freedom of conscience, speech, press, federal rights, state rights, the right
to life, and so forth. Picture all of these rights laid out in a line, with
each prudently considered among the others, and with respect to the others.
Unfortunately, that is not how liberals/progressives
operate. They act according to a hierarchy of rights that—consistent with
progressivism—is always progressing, or changing, or evolving. Right now, for
liberals/progressives, sitting atop the totem pole in this hierarchy are
so-called “marriage rights” and “abortion rights.” In the past, they called
these things not rights but “gay marriage” or “freedom of choice.” Quite
shrewdly, however, they’ve framed these “freedoms” as “rights,” along the lines
of “civil rights.” Equally shrewd, they push them forward under the mantra of
“tolerance.” It’s a brilliant move that’s working extremely effectively with
millions of Americans.
But here’s the main point: for today’s
liberals/progressives, the likes of “marriage rights” and “abortion rights”
rise superior to other rights, certainly above religious rights and property
rights. We see this in the gay marriage examples listed above. It also applies
to the Obama HHS mandate requiring religious believers to fund abortion drugs.
In all these cases, there’s one commonality: liberals/progressives disregard
the religious rights and property rights that they are steamrolling in the name
of gay marriage and abortion. Religious rights and property rights are
subjugated to a kind of liberal/progressive gulag. They are deemed
bottom-of-the-barrel, and in no way nearly as important or worthy of
consideration.
Again, the startling irony is that these same people
fancy themselves champions of tolerance, diversity, and “equal rights.” That
has never been accurate, and they are proving it now with special
uncompromising rigidity. They are pursuing what they’ve always pursued:
selective tolerance, selective diversity, and selective equal rights. Religious
rights are not among their select.
A quotation that sums up this thinking comes from gay
activist, law professor, and EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum. When asked about
the conflict between gay rights and religious rights, Feldblum said, “I’m
having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should
win.”
That’s very clear. An attorney colleague of mine says of
Feldblum: “Supposedly a Constitutional Law scholar, she holds that view despite
the fact that religious freedom is actually in the Constitution!”
Yes, but to liberals/progressives it doesn’t matter. They
have a hierarchy of rights, one that’s always changing. And right now,
religious rights are their bottom-dwellers. For religious believers who
disagree with them, too bad. They’ll see them in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment