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…..
Read more
