Within a narrow interpretation the Supreme Court upheld the right of religious organizations to refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt or foster children. The decision was unopposed but was narrowly worded to let stand underlying law that still threatens the 1st Amendment rights of religious freedom.
“Although Roberts handed a win to Catholic Social Services, he slapped down a push from fellow conservatives to use the case to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, a landmark 1990 case in which the court found that laws that are generally applicable do not violate the First Amendment. That decision has been increasingly called into question as a number of states pass laws raising conflicts between religious and gay rights interests. Roberts wrote that Smith did not apply here because Philadelphia’s policy was not neutral.
Several justices said they wanted to revisit Smith. In her concurrence, Barrett wrote that she had found “compelling” reasons to overturn Smith. Still, she added, that since the case did not apply here, she joined the court’s opinion in full. Alito also attacked Smith in a 77-page opinion, writing that the case is “ripe for reexamination.”
Alito added that CSS’s victory can be easily undone as long as Smith stands.
“This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops,” Alito wrote of Roberts’s opinion.”
Well, even a small win is till a win. But with the Roberts court there’s never really asense that much progress is made. Basically he is progressive in sheep’s clothing.
One of my favorite bad thinkers never tires of reminding his readers and listeners that a negative identity is not a strong position to be in. In other words, if you define your identity by what you are against then you lack a basis for defining what you are for. This is the charge he lays at the feet of Conservative Inc. By defining themselves as only against progressivism they are constantly addressing whatever new outrage the Left cooks up but they fail to define what they themselves do stand for. If you’re always on the defensive you never have a chance to advocate for the things you actually want to see implemented.
Far better is to look at what you do believe in and formulate it into a clear and coherent statement. That way when someone asks your stance on this or that example or scenario you have a rational basis for your answer. And also, it gives you a logical basis for formulating an agenda of actions for the future, a plan. Now my identity is relatively innocuous since at heart I’m just a garden variety civic nationalist. What I would want is a return to normal American society with plenty of allowance for individual differences in background and culture. Plenty of room for normal people who want to raise their kids as good American citizens.
So, that all sounds reasonable but when you look at our present situation it becomes much more complicated. For instance, the Boy Scouts of America was an organization with the specific mission of providing boys with a fraternal organization to help them become physically fit, mentally awake and morally straight. And because of that mission it was hounded by homosexuals and feminists until now it isn’t for boys and soon, I’m sure they’ll have to remove the word straight for fear of offending the delicate.
My example is meant to show that trying to define a positive identity makes you a target for those who hate what you are. They will see what you stand for and try to destroy it. The same thing has been done to almost all other social organizations. The US government has forced women into every fraternal organization with the sole exception of religious organizations. And of course, many of these have surrendered too. One of the only exceptions I know of is the Knights of Columbus which is a Roman Catholic fraternal organization which excludes women as anything but auxiliaries.
Well if that is the only exception then that will have to be the path forward. It’ll have to be a religious fraternal society. The organization must utilize the Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment to protect it from the invasive forces of the federal government and may need to restrict itself to states that do not regularly harass conservative organizations. The mission of the organization can be loosely grounded in the usual fraternal agenda. Service to the community, family activities and religious or ethical training are all things that fall under the purview of a religious fraternal organization. The thing that has to be carefully defined is the religious requirements that define the organization such that you can avoid all the latest abnormal behavior. Luckily the Christian Bible (at least the one used up until the 1950s) has scriptural authority for avoiding the whole LGBTQ agenda in one fell swoop. The only thing I’m not sure of is whether it can be structured so that any member from one of the remaining traditionalist sects is eligible or whether a separate religion will need to be founded in order to give it legitimacy. In other words, is it enough for me to be the Grand Exalted Master or do I also have to be the Pope?
All of this sounds crazy but maybe that is what this world actually requires to permit men the freedom to live their lives as they wish to. When the churches themselves become corrupt and controlled by the insane maybe it’s not crazy to think that new churches need to be formed. This sort of dovetails with my earlier talk about the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club. But of course, as time goes on it becomes less of a joke and more of a necessity. And if anyone knows of an existing fraternal organization that already covers all the bases, I’m interested in let me know and I’ll look into it. Until then I’ll order Camera Girl to make me some sandwiches while I think up secret handshakes and build a mystic decoding ring.
Yesterday I watched the video of Robert George giving a speech to the Catholic Information Center. In the audience were some societal heavy weights like Attorney General Barr. Mr. George very clearly stated that Christians had lost the culture wars and that the only way to avoid living as a prisoner of war in our own country is to fight and win back the ground we’ve lost. He explicitly said that the progressives are our enemies and no compromise is possible. Finally. “I was blind but now I see!” Well better late than never.
This got me to thinking about what fighting back might look like. One thing I thought about is the various Christian denominations that have been hijacked from within by radical bishops. If the faithful still have the numbers then they should reassert the authority of biblical teachings and evict the LGBTQ clergy. And that goes double for the Roman Catholics. Their ranks are riddled with pedophiles and homosexuals masquerading as celibates. And they must also purge their ranks of atheists. Leave them to the Unitarians. But even if the faithful portion of the denomination is a minority, they have an option; to leave. They should leave en masse (let’s call it an Exodus). As the Bible says, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” And if that means leaving behind the fancy church building, the fat bank accounts and the support of the religious establishment, then all the better. All the clap-trap of the organization is a big part of the problem in the first place.
And another action that the churches can perform is pool their resources and hire some lawyers to pursue judicial remedies for the state and local policies that clearly violate the First Amendment. In the more godless areas of the country this will probably require appeals rising all the way to the Supreme Court but that’s what it’s there for. From my perspective this is one of the first things they need to do.
And the Catholic Church needs to reestablish its control over the schools and colleges that it claims to run and strip them of all instructors, courses, clubs and activities that openly support any practice that the Church knows to be evil. And just doing that will take a lifetime. There are states where the only way to accomplish this is to either to buy out the contracts of professors or wait until they retire. But it needs to be done. And if in the liberal states they aren’t allowed to make these reforms then the Church should separate itself from these colleges altogether. Religious education needs to be distinguishable from the paganism that is on display on every campus in America.
And the churches need to get back to providing support and counseling to the families in their communities. Sports teams, fraternal organizations, festivals and every other community activity needs wholesome and devoted people who have the time and the interest to knit people together. There is a terrible void in the lives of almost everyone in this country and that void is where the churches used to be. That work is a better place to spend money than on stained glass memorial windows.
And the other thing these churches need to do is apologize to their flocks. For decades the clergy have allowed themselves to be beguiled by secular humanists who claimed that cooperation and compromise would bring religious and non-religious people closer together. Instead they just destroyed the churches and drove the faithful away. If these church leaders ever hope to bring the people back, they need to purge their ranks of unbelievers and evil men and search their own souls and pray to God to give them guidance and read their Bibles to learn what they must and must not teach.
So, that’s a few of the things I think they need to do. If they could do half of that it would get us a lot closer to heaven than to the hell, we’re in now.
A small business in Phoenix just won a first amendment case against a Phoenix Arizona ordinance that would have forced them to provide artwork for a same-sex marriage that they object to on religious grounds.
After the success of the Supreme Court rulings in Colorado and Washington it looks like some small sliver of sanity is returning to First Amendment legislation.
Hopefully enough precedent will build up to give SCOTUS the guts to make a more sweeping decision against this sort of thing in general.
In my first post on this subject I addressed the necessity of protecting traditional Christians from being harassed by the LGBTQ mafia. After taking care of that problem, the next freedom of speech issue that needs to be handled is the gatekeeping that the social media companies have been doing that denies access to people of whose politics the gatekeepers do not approve. Either single-handedly or by forming a cartel, companies such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook have the ability to effectively shut out of the electronic town square anyone that they disapprove of. In the modern age these social media sites are de facto, the only means of free speech in the digital world. And since they act as essentially monopolies they must be treated as such by the federal government.
Currently, Twitter will allow (exclusively) left leaning users to contact the left-leaning “Trust and Safety” Commissariat, to fink on someone they dislike and this will get the wheels in motion to eliminate this wrong thinker. The process may take one or several steps but the eventual outcome will be the removal of the offender from the Twitterverse. Facebook and Youtube have similar set-ups with equally Orwellian titles that allow the Left to exclude the Right from these social media sites. Since these sites benefit from the virtual monopolies that they have they must be regulated as such by the government to prevent them from discriminating against those they dislike.
On the commerce side there are money transfer services like PayPal and Stripe that also have formed cartel like arrangements that conspire to demonetize anyone whose politics they disapprove of. Added to this are the crowdfunding companies that have recently begun doing the same. And these sites are presently the critical locations for doing business on the web. Without them companies and individuals are shut out of e-commerce almost completely. The Left knows this and is using it as a bludgeon to force conformity by anyone who wants to do business on-line.
The good news is that laws already exist to combat this kind of market place manipulation. The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department are specifically empowered to monitor and enforce anti-trust and unfair trade practices laws. Currently the Justice Department is in the hands of the enemy and is probably incapable of performing its duty with respect to protecting the rights of non-leftist citizens. However, after the mid-terms it may well be that President Trump will be firing the Attorney General, his Deputy and every other swamp creature currently inhabiting it. If that does occur I hope one of the earlier actions of this cleansed department is investigating and punishing these various on-line perpetrators of malfeasance and leveling the playing field in the on-line environment.
It’s entirely possible that none of these issues would rise to the level of a Supreme Court case. But if it does we have the correct court to enforce these cases. With these cases covered I believe we will have provided the people on the right with the on-line environment they need to thrive. Otherwise these strong-arm tactics by the left will increasingly hamper and weaken us.
So many aspects of life under the leftist regime are unpleasant that sometimes it’s difficult to decide what should be fixed first. I think this is part of what leads to the apocalyptic mindset when the Right thinks of how all this will have to be resolved. Back in September the ZMan had a podcast that looked at the current state of the Bill of Rights in America. http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=14969
He makes a pretty compelling case that even though theoretically we still have freedoms of speech and religion and the right to bear arms all of these have been hamstrung through the efforts of courts, state governments, bureaucrats and even corporations that want to tell you how to live.
And that has been in the back of my mind ever since. And now that Brett Kavanaugh has been added to the Supreme Court I think it’s clear what the first priority should be. It’s time to restore the Bill of Rights. It’s time to take a stand against the Courts and States that have criminalized traditional beliefs and practices. And the most egregious example is the gay marriage bamboozle. It’s time for the Supreme Court to tell the Blue States that normal people don’t have to pretend that gay marriage is something they need to celebrate. We can leave the question of the constitutionality of protecting the right to gay marriage for another day but it’s obvious to any reasonable man that eschewing any involvement with it is squarely under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Religion aspect of the First Amendment. Not being a lawyer, I’m not exactly sure what the best way to provide blanket protection for this. I would guess that a decision from the Supreme Court recognizing the tenets of traditional marriage as protected under the First Amendment should do it. Then if any of the states disobey the ruling the President can send the National Guard in and follow up with some kind of federal oversight to ensure that it sticks.
In addition to the cake bakers and photographers this will also aid the religious organizations, schools and social agencies. For instance, Catholic Adoption agencies have been put out of business because states like Massachusetts prosecuted them for refusing adoption to homosexuals. Now, it may already be too late for some organizations like the Boy Scouts. They seem to have folded. But new organizations can step forward to fill the gap. So, these protections will benefit many parts of traditional life. And in the aggregate, they will make life more tolerable for traditional individuals in America. In fact, what they will allow is the ability for normal people to separate from the progressives in the aspects of life that are most important to people, namely their most strongly held beliefs.
So, this is the first and most critically needed change that the Right needs enacted. There are plenty of other areas where push back against the progressives is needed and I will address these subsequently but without a doubt, this one is first.
So what good is a conservative Supreme Court majority if not to eliminate some unconstitutional rulings. What do you think will be first?
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
As simple as that.
Well written analysis of how the First Amendment is being attacked and why. His discussion of social media is good but I want to go a step farther. If Google and Facebook are already in bed with the FBI and the CIA then they are already a utility and need to be held to the same First Amendment requirements government is constrained by.
Can the First Amendment Protect Us from the Ruling Class?