Politicians Don’t Believe in Free Exercise of Religion

The free exercise of religion means that religious schools get to teach their religion.

First Amendment

Here is an interesting story from the Daily Signal: “Why Are Lawmakers Attacking This Archbishop for Requiring Catholic Teachers to Not Slam Catholicism?

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone is under fire for adding new clauses to archdiocese’s high school teachers contract that require “Catholic teachers in their professional and public lives uphold Catholic teaching,” according to the diocesan newspaper Catholic San Francisco.

[…]

Last week, eight California assemblymen and state senators, representing the areas in the archdiocese, sent Cordileone a letter, saying the new clauses “conflict with settled areas of law and foment a discriminatory environment in the communities we serve.”

Remember: Never use basic logic or historical principle with modern Democratic politicians—it simply irritates them. If logic or principle were a compelling factor in their lives, they would likely not be Democrats; their goal is power and control, not fairness or rightness—not truth or justice.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone absolutely destroyed a host of typical Democratic arguments with a simple, logical rebuttal:

Would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?

I would add: Would you force a Black baker to make a cake for a Ku Klux Klan meeting? Would you punish a “gay” baker for refusing to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for the Westboro “Baptist Church”? Should a person not be free to live out his beliefs, and to make his own decisions whether or not to support or participate in behaviors he finds odious? Is that not what freedom of speech, conscience, and association truly means?

[See also, “John McCain Demonstrates How Americans Are Freedom-Fearing Losers.”]

Democrats want you to be “free” only to do those things of which they approve—which is not freedom at all, but a tyranny of their own warped philosophies.

(Please note in this context: I am not Roman Catholic, and I have significant concerns about key aspects of their doctrines, but… I absolutely believe in their right to teach as they feel convinced, and in my right to attempt to graciously dialogue with them about those differences.)

By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the religion clauses ensured that the new federal government—unlike the English crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The establishment clause prevents the government from appointing ministers, and the free exercise clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.

Civil government in America today is largely focused on aspects of culture and society on which our unique form of governance originally said they have absolutely no right to intrude. Politicians have become a collection of tyrannical busybodies who just can’t leave the People alone.

It can rightly be said of the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats today that “they hate us for our freedoms.”