Adding on from “Moral Ambiguous” is this snippet from Imprimis (emphasis mine, I urge you to go read the whole thing – GRTWT) explains it well:
The idea seems to be that moral views historically supported by religion—which of course means all moral views other than modern secular ones—are constitutionally suspect.
Even as our Constitution was built, in no small part, on values from our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage. We are starting to live that phrase “a prophet has no honor in his own country”.
Here we come to the unifying feature of contemporary challenges to religious freedom—the desire to limit the influence of religion over public life. In the world envisioned by Obama administration lawyers, churches will have freedom as “houses of worship,” but unless they accept the secular consensus they can’t inspire their adherents to form institutions to educate and serve society in accordance with the principles of their faith. Under a legal regime influenced by the concept of public reason, religious people are free to speak—but when their voices contradict the secular consensus, they’re not allowed into our legislative chambers or courtrooms.
Freedom of expression, freedom of speech? Only that which is allowed by Government which is to say, no freedom at all. Those Constitutional values…..
Thus our present clashes over religious liberty. The Constitution protects religious liberty in two ways. First, it prohibits laws establishing a religion. This prevents the dominant religion from using the political power of majority rule to privilege its own doctrines to the disadvantage of others. Second, it prohibits laws that limit the free exercise of religion. What we’re seeing today is a secular liberalism that wants to expand the prohibition of establishment to silence articulate religious voices and disenfranchise religiously motivated voters, and at the same time to narrow the scope of free exercise so that the new secular morality can reign over American society unimpeded.
A most similar tactic used by the Obama Administration and its sycophants in relation to the National Debt – using the 24th Amendment Section 4 (“the public debt”) in yelling that the debt has to be paid – even as they keep piling on the spending that keeps the debt rising. Here, we see what should be the freedom of expression being used in Orwellian fashion (dang, that adjective keeps coming up a lot lately) to shut down that same enumerated Right.
