David French says we are in a “Two Faith Nation:”
…this modern liberalism a “pseudo-church.” Increasingly, however, we can drop the “pseudo.” As Andrew Sullivan and many others have been arguing for some time, the language and practice of secular intersectionality directly compares with multiple elements of classic religious belief — from original sin (privilege), to justification (becoming woke), to sanctification (being an ally). But the secular nature of this religion leads many progressives to believe it can fully inhabit government, the academy, and corporate America without constitutional or legal consequence. True enough, under American law you can preach each aspect of the social-justice faith from the government pulpit in a way that you can’t preach the divinity of Christ, but social justice cannot crowd religion from the public square.
But here is the thing – it is not that our opposition is preaching “each aspect of the social-justice faith from the government pulpit,” or that they are trying to “crowd” religion from the public square. It is that in Sharia-like fashion they are trying to use the force of government to kill religon. As evidence, I give you the utterances, public utterances, of members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission – a governmental agency:
ADF attorneys said they uncovered statements from a 2018 public meeting in which two commissioners voiced their support for comments that a previous commissioner, Diann Rice, made in 2015, calling religious freedom “a despicable piece of rhetoric.”
These agents of government find religion “despicable,” and attempted to use the force of government to deny religious expression. That is not “crowding out,” that is a direct attack. Thank goodness common sense, greatly aided by the Supreme Court, prevailed.
You want more evidence, consider this NYTimes op-ed from a Columbia law prof. He does not talk about religion at all, what he does is complain about how that darned government just stands in the way of everybody getting what they clearly want. Needless to say he is pretty selective and deceptively simplistic in his presentation of what “everybody wants,” but that is not really the point I want to make. He is arguing that the government is an impediment to progress. He stops short of arguing against doing away with government, but the same argument could be advanced when it comes to social issues. We have just looked at a case where the government defended faith against perceived “progress” – what if it was not there?
My friend Matt Anderson recently took a good look at a NYTimes op-ed in which the author, unconvincingly in my opinion, attempted to defend letting her prematurely birthed child die. Matt is quite logical and analytical in his analysis – I find it impossible to be so. Given that I have friends that just, like a week ago, brought home a child of roughly the same birth weight as the one she “allowed to die,” given that I recently met the newborn daughter of one of triplets, in the presence of BOTH her siblings, that were also quite premature – this is visceral for me. I have just listed four dear friends, three of whom are now well into the 30’s, that would be dead by this woman’s standards. Of course such an individual would want religion dead – she needs it dead to live with herself.
But, I remind myself, I have given up being defensive for Lent. And so, just for fun – and boy do we need fun, I turn you to this list, published by Esquire, ranking those that have played the role of James Bond. You may recall that last year, I published a ranking of the Bond films. If you read my rankings, I am certain you will figure out that my opinion of the Esquire list is not very high. But as I said as preamble to my list, Bond films are all about fun – so have some.