Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
July 16 - November 29, 2018
“the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.”
“These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.
The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
A dangerously distorted version of inclusiveness forced a perfectly decent man, who was never accused of any intolerance, to resign from the company he had founded simply because he had quietly supported the conjugal view of marriage as a citizen and a voter.
As these controversies were unfolding, no one suggested that the government should force Mozilla to employ Eich or force A&E to employ Robertson. They were free to give these loyal and effective employees the boot even if most Americans thought their firing was unjust. But the same rules apparently do not apply on the other side of the debate over same-sex marriage.
Yet in the name of that freedom some now want to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships.
Forcing these agencies to close does nothing to help children who need homes or the couples who want to adopt them. All it does is score a point for political correctness. It makes vulnerable children victims in an adult culture war.
Rather than abandon Catholic teaching about marriage and the family and ignore the evidence that the best place for a child is with a married mother and father, Catholic Charities of Boston ended its foster care and adoption programs, which had helped approximately 720 children to find permanent adoptive homes over the previous twenty years.
“One of our main things we were looking for in an agency was one that shared our religious and faith beliefs,” explains John Shultz, who with his wife, Tammy, adopted four foster care children through ECFA. Without the support of ECFA, he says, “I don’t think I could’ve weathered the storm of the foster care system.”
“Not only do these laws violate religious liberty, they harm children because they force high-quality, compassionate social service agencies to shut down. If all faith-based agencies closed due to such laws, the adoption and child welfare field would be decimated, depriving thousands of children growing up in families.”
Killing off these services out of ideological spite will inflict incalculable harm on those children.
None of the Christian agencies shut down by antireligious intolerance was preventing same-sex couples from adopting through other agencies. They are free to adopt from state agencies or from other private services with principles that are compatible with their own. These agencies simply asked for the freedom to operate in accordance with their beliefs. Shutting them down because of their Christian principles is shamefully intolerant, and given the compelling evidence that children deserve a mother and a father, it’s also bad social policy.
“NEASC announced that it had met to consider whether ‘Gordon College’s traditional inclusion of “homosexual practice” as a forbidden activity’ violated NEASC’s standards for accreditation. NEASC gave Gordon one year ‘to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are non-discriminatory.’”
That’s right, a public school district kicked out student teachers from Gordon, once again holding children hostage in an adult culture war.
After all, many families send their children to private schools—often at great sacrifice—precisely to escape the troubling moral indoctrination found in many state schools. Government officials should respect the ability of such schools to witness to their faith.
At the end of 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the Human Rights Commission’s ruling, holding that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s freedom to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony, even if doing so would violate the photographer’s religious beliefs.
“[T]he government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein.”37
“a clear conflict of interest.”
“Suspicious of potential collusion, Harmon, the Kleins’ lawyer, requested the judge allow her to further investigate the state’s relationship with Basic Rights Oregon.”
Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.
Having been compared to slave owners and Nazis, Phillips was eventually found to have violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”
“freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.”
“I did serve Rob. It’s the event that I turned down, not the service for Rob or his partner.”
“I had a good relationship with Rob and I served him for years. We did have a personal relationship, and I think the world of him. We just disagree on what marriage is.”
“And we respect that good people disagree with our religious conviction against hosting a ceremony that violates our faith. We simply ask that the government not
force us to abandon our faith or punish us for it.”
In June 2015 the Odgaards announced that they would be closing down everything for good. Another victim of a movement that claims to be about tolerance and coexistence.
In this case, however, the city eventually backed down. Why? Because there was a national outcry and lots of media coverage. Even an influential legal blog hosted at the Washington Post noticed the story and warned that the city was violating important religious liberty laws.63
They decided to host no more weddings as a result of this ruling.
It is obvious that Cochran was speaking in his private capacity (not as fire chief) and that he was speaking on a matter of public concern (biblical faith and human sexuality). But did his speech interfere with his job?
To actually lose my childhood-dream-come-true profession—where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded—because of my faith is staggering. The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me. All Americans are guaranteed the freedom to hold to their beliefs without the consequences that I have experienced.85
In the decade or so before the Obergefell decision, when Americans were debating the definition of marriage, no one was suggesting that gays and lesbians be barred from forming intimate unions. Same-sex marriage was not “illegal” in the way that theft, arson, and littering are illegal. In all fifty states, two people of the same sex could live together, join a religious community that blessed their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. They were free to do all of this, as the dissenting opinions in Obergefell point out; the state simply didn’t recognize their
...more
None of the stories told in this chapter had to happen. In a tolerant society, citizens would live and let live when it came to these clashes. The state wouldn’t coerce people to violate their reasonable, deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Religious charities and schools would be able to operate in accordance with that belief. And the state would allow its citizens to operate a business and participate in the marketplace without abandoning their faith. The next chapter explains how to protect this right in law.
The government protects their freedom to seek the truth about God, to worship according to their conscience, and to live out their convictions in public life. Likewise, citizens are free to enter into contracts and to form associations according to their own values.
Freedom of association and freedom of contract are two-way streets. They entail the freedom to choose whom to associate with, when, and on what terms, as well as the freedom to choose whom to do business with and for what goods or services. Governmental mandates that impinge on these freedoms should be imposed only for compelling reasons.
The government should not be determining who is right or wrong about baking cakes or taking photographs for same-sex weddings. You don’t have to share the beliefs of the owners of Sweet Cakes or Elane Photography to recognize that they ought to be free to run their businesses in accordance with their values—and without fear of reprisal from the government. This chapter explains why.
The Founding Fathers of the United States established a political society unlike any other in all of human history. Here we would not merely “tolerate” the religious practice of minorities but would protect the right of all people to liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religion. The Founders recognized that religious liberty is a God-given natural right, not the creation of government. States must respect and protect this right, never undermine or attack it.
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
In America, religious liberty is not the result of mere “toleration” but an inherent natural right.
A hallmark of true religious liberty is that it is extended to persons of all faiths, even if their beliefs seem unfounded, flawed, implausible, or downright silly.
Use this for religious liberty presentations.
People have the right to pursue religious truth and, within the limits of justice and the common good, to act on their judgments of what truth demands. They possess this right even when they are, in some respects, in error.
We are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but to God what is God’s, because Caesar is not God. Religion is outside of the jurisdiction of Caesar, who must acknowledge that men’s consciences are bound by a higher law.
Use this for religious liberty presentations.
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.”3
“arrogant pretension”
“the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of R...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
The right to religious liberty is the result of a prior duty to seek out the truth about God and the cosmos.
What is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.5
In the liberal tradition, the government’s role is not to make theological judgments but to protect the right of the people to pursue their own understanding of the truth, within the limits of the common good. That is the difference between “the full and free exercise of religion” (Madison’s formulation) and mere “toleration.” Toleration presupposes a “dominant group” with a particular opinion about religion (that it is “false,” or at least “unwarranted”), who decide not to “eradicate” beliefs they regard as “wrong, mistaken, or undesirable.”6
