Updates on Liberals' War on Christianity

Just fourteen days into 2019, it looks like the liberals have no desire to lay down their arms and surrender their war on Christianity.  While Christianity and religion as a whole have had victories in court and at the ballot box in the past year, that does not mean that liberals have decided to agree to disagree with Christians.

In the 2014 Supreme Court decision Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, five out of nine justices agreed that companies had the right to refuse to cover employees’ birth control if their  religious beliefs prevented then from doing so in good conscience. Typically, when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it sets a precedent for lower courts to follow when similar cases come before them.  Lower courts typically abide by the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for “let the decision stand.” However, as Ann Coulter pointed out, liberals’ definition of stare decisis is “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”  Liberals treat Supreme Court decisions favor to third-wave feminism and intersectionality as “settled law” while never giving the same deference to Supreme Court decisions that actually abide by the Constitution as opposed to the dictates of third-world feminism as explained in the diaries of Gloria Steinem and Sandra Fluke.  

Five years later, a Federal judge in California has struck down a Trump administration rule allowing employers to opt out of birth control coverage in thirteen states and the District of Columbia.  Unfortunately for liberals, Judge Haywood Gilliam did not issue a nationwide injunction, he merely prevented the rule from going into effect in the thirteen states that brought the lawsuit against the Trump administration. A Fox News brief on the impending decision made it sound as if the judge did not take into consideration any Constitutional law whatsoever when making the decision, instead basing his decision on the prospect that “could strip birth control coverage from a substantial number of women.”  What does that have to do with the Constitution, again?  Judges seem to forget that their job is to determine whether or not a law violates the Constitution, not analyze whether or not certain decisions will harm a constituency with powerful lobbying groups. 

In 2018, baker Jack Phillips got to declare victory in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission…for about 30 seconds.  Phillips became entangled in an intense legal battle when he refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his deeply held religious belief that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  His refusal to bake the cake drew the ire of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who argued that he violated Colorado’s public accommodation law, despite the fact that he did not refuse service to the couple because of their “immutable characteristics,” he refused service because he objected to the event.    

After the legal battle made it to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Commission demonstrated hostility towards his religious belief that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allegedly subscribed to just a decade ago.  To paraphrase Rihanna, it seems like liberals have decided to make Phillips feel like he’s “the only baker in the world.” One year earlier, on the same day the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case caused heartburn to millions of SJWs across America, a transgender lawyer called Phillips and asked to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.  The cake would have a blue exterior and a pink interior; the stereotypical colors for boys and girls that liberals no longer seem to see any difference between.  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission apparently learned absolutely nothing from the Supreme Court decision and has forced Phillips into court, again, for refusing to bake a cake celebrating an event that goes against his religious beliefs.

If any other baker found themselves in a similar situation, liberals would probably rush to their defense.  Rick Santorum, a passionate advocate for religious liberty, asked an obvious question: “If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God hates fags’ for the Westboro Baptist church because they hold those signs up?” Most liberals would answer that question with a “no.”  Liberals would probably have the same opinion if a Nazi sympathizer walked into a Jewish-owned bakery and asked the baker to make a cake with a swastika on it.   

Liberals appear to have achieved a large degree of success in packing the judicial branch with jurists hostile to mainstream Christianity.  That may explain why they have gone absolutely nuts over some of President Trump’s judicial nominees.  Liberals have tried to do everything in their power to humiliate the judicial nominees, even if they humiliate themselves in the process by exposing themselves as anti-Catholic bigots.  When questioning President Trump’s nominee to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Amy Coney Barrett, Senator Dianne Feinstein went on a tirade: “When we read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.  And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for – for years in this country.”  If dogma lives loudly within Barrett, then the secular-progressive dogma, which even President Obama admits the existence of, lives even louder within Feinstein and many of her Democratic colleagues.

The anti-Catholic bigotry continued into 2019, when another one of President Trump’s judicial nominees had the misfortune of having to appear before publicity-hungry Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of whom has her eyes on the White House in 2020.  Brian Buescher, a nominee to serve on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, faced pressure from Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and likely 2020 Presidential contender Kamala Harris to end his membership in the Knights of Columbus. Senator Hirono’s line of questioning even drew the ire of one of her colleagues in Hawaii’s Congressional delegation, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who has represented Hirono’s old seat in the House since she abandoned it to run for the Senate. Gabbard felt so strongly about the Democrats’ behavior that she wrote an entire op-ed in The Hill. Gabbard, who just joined the field of approximately 400 Democrats running for President, faced pushback for going against Democratic Party orthodoxy.  Feminist Jill Filivopic complained about Gabbard’s criticism of Democratic Senators for “questioning a judicial nominee’s membership in an extreme right-wing anti-choice anti-LBGT all-male organization.”  It seems hard to believe that liberals would have such a big problem with the Knights of Columbus, maybe the name “Columbus,” a reference to Christopher Columbus, who the left dismisses as a genocidal maniac, explains the left’s hostility to the brotherhood of lay Catholics who cook free meals and donate to charities such as the Special Olympics and disaster relief organizations.

Their real objection to having a Knight of Columbus on the Court probably has something to do with their admiration for Saul Alinsky, who identified scrubbing religion from the public square as one of the steps to creating a social state.  Lumping in Democrats with Alinsky might seem like an unfair conspiracy theory but keep in mind that the two most recent Democratic Party Presidential standard-bearers, President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have expressed their admiration for Alinsky.  

Speaking of scrubbing religion from the public square, liberals have declared war on a “peace cross” in Bladensburg, Maryland designed to commemorate World War I veterans.  A handful of liberals took their case to the Courts and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with their position, striking down the cross.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear The American Legion’s petition for a writ of certiorari. West Virginia, along with 29 other states, have filed an amicus brief arguing for the reversal of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, citing the 2005 Supreme Court case Van Orden v. Perry, which argued that religious imagery does not violate the Establishment clause if they serve a primarily secular purpose; in this case, to honor fallen heroes who fought in “The War to End All Wars.”

On the other hand, liberals seem to give Muslims extreme deference when it comes to respecting the tenets of their religion.  Federal Judge Bernard Friedman seemed to have no problem with Muslim doctors who practice female genital mutilation; dismissing nearly all the charges against two Michigan doctors who engage in the medieval practice and declaring the nationwide ban on female genital mutilation unconstitutional.  Congress passed a ban on female genital mutilation in 1996, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. Most Americans find the idea of female genital mutilation, a practice common in certain tenets of Islam, absolutely repulsive.  Shelby Quast of Equality Now described the decision as a “giant step backward in the protection of women’s and girls’ rights.” 

While most liberals, excluding Gabbard, seem to have no problem when Christians face persecution for their faith; they immediately rush to the defense of Muslims whenever they face criticism.  For instance, an objective onlooker could easily describe Louis Farrakhan’s philosophy as “anti-LGBT” and “anti-Semitic,” yet only Jake Tapper even bothers to question Democrats about their support for the controversial Nation of Islam leader.  Many of the newest members of Congress, including impeachment cheerleader Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, share Farrakhan’s contempt for Israel.  Yet, they face absolutely no allegations of bigotry. The same liberals who seem to have no problem with Senate Democrats’ treatment of Buescher for his Catholic faith and membership in the Knights of Columbus lost their minds over the prospect of Tarrant County, Texas Republican Party voting to remove their Vice Chairman from his post because of his Muslim faith.  The Tarrant County Republican Party voted overwhelmingly against removing Dr. Shahid Shafi from his post.

The doctrine of intersectionality, which views Islam as a race, not a religion; insulates the Muslim faith from the same type of criticism and scrutiny that liberals direct towards Christianity.  Liberals hostility to Christianity comes from the fact that they see the religion as an obstacle to implementing the goals of Karl Marx, as Pat Buchanan explained in Death of the West:  “unless and until Chrstianity and Western culture, the immune system of capitalism, were uprooted from the soul of Western Man, Marxism could not take root, and the revolution would be betrayed by the workers in whose name it was to be fought.” 

Liberals probably feel more emboldened than ever to continue waging the war on Christianity in the wake of the 2018 election, where voters seemed to give a thumbs-up to their policies by giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives.  While the war on Christianity will continue, it looks like many devoted Christians or supporters of religious liberty in general will not adopt Dido’s “White Flag” as their official anthem anytime soon.