People do not suddenly lose the right to live their faith when they step outside their church/mosque/synagogue. Or as the Supreme Court even admits, they can’t just excise the “principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations” from the inmost being each time they go to work. A Christian is a Christian at home and at work. A Muslim is a Muslim on a train or in a plane. A Buddhist is a Buddhist sitting down or walking about. A Humanist is a Humanist whether talking or listening. These paradigms, religious or otherwise, inform our decisions. They are the reason we have a Bill of Rights.
Conscience is so vital to a free society that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that people cannot be forced to act against their consciences when there is no compelling interest for the government to make them. Even when a compelling interest exists, the government must provide reasonable accommodation where possible, or else show that no other means exists. For example: conscientious objectors to war cannot be drafted. Muslim workers at American Eagle are permitted to wear the hijab, against company policy. Sikh taxi drivers may refuse to transport alcohol. What’s wrong with providing a reasonable accommodation to Kim Davis? Why do the certificates have to have her signature? She wants to do the job, and she did it just fine before the laws (and her job description) changed. All it would take is, what? A quick amendment of a state statute? Easy-peasey. But it’s more politically expedient to drag this out: Democrats can bash the meanie traditionalists for their “homophobia” (never mind that Davis herself is a Democrat), and Republicans can score election points against the fascist hippies for jailing a martyr (never mind that they’d do the same if they still had any social capital). Cannibals. And Christians are the meal.
Basically, the Zeitgeist’s order for Christians is: conform or shut up, especially if you work a government job. Essentially, no traditionalist may be a county clerk. That’s got a legal name. It’s called a discriminatory test. It’s like making voters take a “literacy test” at the polls, or teachers swear an oath to the party and the Fuhrer. I fear traditionalists, including the religious, Classical Liberals, and others will become second-class, sub-citizens to the ruling Progressive Machine.
Of course, there’s so much more that I haven’t even touched on. Kim’s supporters range from the thoughtful and measured, to the sophomoric theocrats, to the flat-out bigoted. Same for her opponents. It’s a complex situation and too many parties are riding the wave to cash in.
This ^^^^^
As a classical Liberal, I totally agree!
As someone posted above, well, what if the Muslim guy doesn’t want his daughter/wife driving… The thing is that’s okay in my book. However, at the same time, I believe that we should encourage policies of integration and assimilation into Western society.
These days, there are way too many Westerners who actively HATE the West and Western values and encourage immigrants to hold too closely to their former culture (instead of fully integrating into our society).
(Personally, I’d insert America instead of Western, but I know that not CAF members are in America…so just trying to include everyone who considers themselves part of the Western world.)
Culture, language, borders. These things matter and if we teach people to disrespect the society they are in, guess what, they are going to do it. We are reaping what “progressives” have sown.
The expectation is that 2nd generation immigrants will be more integrated than their parents and that their parents came here because they wanted to live in a more liberal society.
However, in reality, that expectation falls short. It’s no wonder that the Muslim guy thinks that it’s okay to treat women badly when we won’t even say that we like and need Western values because of the implied threat of being labeled xenophobic and racist (or another “ist”).
Too many people like to play the “I’m being disrespected” card when in fact people are saying “I disagree with you, but I’m okay with you as a person.” It’s sad that people really don’t know the difference.
I don’t agree with gay marriage. You can have one - just don’t force me to participate in it.
I don’t see how that’s hateful, except for the fact that Progressives have decided that everyone must agree that gay marriage is good or else you will be threatened with the loss of business, reputation and possibly freedom.
Yeah…that’s not very liberal. In fact, that seems rather totalitarian to me, but hey…who am I too judge? right?
A lot of people really don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable these days.
