> she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty
Yes! Absolutely! The religious liberty argument is doomed to failure.
Why this doomed strategy is being pursued rouses suspicion of questionable motives.
You mean like how it was doomed in 1776?
The religious liberty argument is doomed to failure …
Talking about “personal” religious liberty is more coming at the question from too low an angle, than it is wrong.
In a grand sense, “religion” (Christian faith or at least a robust bible ethics belief) gave America its liberty.
The modern view is so often that the bible is at best anachronistic, at worst a malicious busybody, bent on causing everyone needless grief. And that might indeed be the way that selfish religionists have used it, but the Spirit of God is not that way.
I don’t think its questionable motives. I think it’s just short sighted.
The Gaystapo has succeeded by marginalizing Christians, but we’ve marginalized ourselves, too, by failing to make this a larger Constitutional issue, and by hesitating to unite with seculars.
People who aren’t religious fail to understand the Gaystapo and their comrades will be coming for them pretty soon, and the Christians all along were the only ones looking out for their parental rights, and the safety of their jobs and families.
I think he makes that point because the legal argument is easier, not necessarily more valid.
From the woman’s standpoint, it is about religious liberty. But from the legal perspective there are other more compelling arguments to them.
To her, nothing could be more compelling.