Laura Perrins: The new liberal intolerance. Denying Christians the right publicly to practise their faith

The hostility towards Christians is reaching fever pitch in the liberal West. The rights of Christians to practice their faith has come under sustained attack from some liberals, and too often those in positions of power.

The past few weeks the right of Christian parents to educate their children in the Christian faith as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights was placed under sustained attack by liberal columnists, particularly at The Times and The Guardian.

Even though their argument relied on alleged discriminatory practices carried out in non-faith state schools, it seemed Christian faith schools were to blame. The anti-faith school mob’s manipulation of the alleged Trojan horse scandal was as predictable as it was flawed.

This followed the legalisation changing the definition of marriage. On the subject of same sex marriage most reasonable people would think there were coherent arguments from both sides.

But anyone who defended the traditional view of marriage as that being between one man and one woman for the raising of children produced by that union were called ‘bigots’ at the highest level of government and much worse in other quarters.

There were similar attacks in the United States. In one infamous case a CEO was fired from his job for supporting traditional marriage – in fact, he was fired for not saying sorry for holding a Christian view of marriage, which is even worse. Renounce, or else. The threat against the person’s livelihood, if not their lives, for holding Christian beliefs is fast becoming a favoured method of persecution by liberals.

More worryingly, in the past week in the United States the Supreme Court refused to allow the federal government to force on the owners of the chain store Hobby Lobby to act against their religious beliefs. The Left did not accept this for what it was – a check on vastly expanded federal power under Obamacare.

Instead it was condemned as a war on women (a war that includes the same employer paying for 12 other kinds of contraception), with Hillary Clinton grossly misrepresenting the facts and outcome of the case. This does not bode well considering she is a person who one day hopes to swear the Presidential Oath, which specifically includes protecting and upholding the US Constitution including the First Amendment.

As the Supreme Court has six Catholics sitting on it, it quickly became open season on Catholics with their right to hold public office being called into account. Most right-thinking people thought this was settled when JFK took the Presidential Oath, but it seems this is once again a matter for public debate.

In addition, quickly trending on Twitter was the hashtag Scalia law – used to evoke comparisons with Sharia Law and theocracies. Never mind that Justice Scalia, has defended the right to burn the American flag as protected speech under the First Amendment and he is one of the few Justices with a coherent theory of legal interpretation.

I believe that for many anti-faith liberals they simply do not understand why someone might adhere to or at least try to adhere to a Christian moral and ethical code. This is distinct from disagreeing with the substance of this code, or condemning the institutions of Christianity. That is all fair enough. But now many simply do not understand why anyone would want to live their lives by that code. Herein lies the disconnect.

A Huffington Post article that claimed that as result of Hobby Lobby we may as well bring back stoning of women shows this disconnect. They attempted to use a painting of ‘stoning of a woman’ to illustrate this point only it turned out to be the martyring St Stephen. If a somewhat respected news outlet demonstrates this kind of stunning ignorance towards Christian heritage we should not be surprised at the hostility.

The anti-Christian liberals have gone past the point of live and let live; have your Christian beliefs but just do not impose them on me. It seems they do not like Christians themselves having these beliefs.

The liberals might say oh, you can have them but you just do not exercise or manifest them. Well, Christianity is more than holding beliefs in the privacy of your own mind, house or church. It includes exercising them, such as educating your children in the faith and not acting against your conscience by government fiat.

The Christian faith involves more than saying ten Hail Marys – although a few of those might not go amiss right now.

Laura Perrins
  • Colonel Mustard

    I do wish you wouldn’t refer to them as “liberals”. They are not. A nasty and growing strain of strident, intolerant and authoritarian leftism appears to be the legacy of New Labour. There is nothing “liberal” about it except the boasts it makes aspiring to “equality” and “fairness” which are in the main either bogus or larded with unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences. The “progress” and benefits are dubious and highly debatable but of course the left excels at shutting down any debate they don’t care for and ignoring the evidence of their past failures and damage. This appears to be justified on Marcusean principles which have emerged from barminess to become a principle mainstay weapon of the “progressive” movement. A moral absolutism of quasi-religious fervour is being applied to politics by the left and does not bode well for the future of democracy.

    Recently there are examples of appalling relativism where historic Christian “terror” is being referenced in response to articles about the modern horrors of ISIS and Islamic extremism.

    • https://belasariust.wordpress.com/ solly gratia

      For want of a better label, they are liberals. There is a direct genealogical line from 19th century modified liberalism, through progressive liberalism to today’s ‘equality and fairness for everyone except those we disagree with’ liberalism. The problem is that, although they like to shout about progressiveness – just see Nick Clegg on any other day – they have no moral vision of what they are progressing to, only an antipathy to what they are progressing from. Liberalism in theology started as the right to question accepted answers in pursuit of clearer ones, and ended as the right to believe anything you want and still claim it was Christian. Liberalism in politics has followed a similar path. To infinity and beyond!

      • bugalugs2

        The better label is to call them what they are, ‘anti-clericals’. Not ‘liberals’, not ‘secularists’ or anything else. Part of their hypocrisy is that they cannot face being called what they actually are.

      • Rush_is_Right

        “Liberals” has been the word used to describe American left-wing scum since I was a schoolboy, and that’s 50 years ago.

        • https://belasariust.wordpress.com/ solly gratia

          Yes, but it means different things to different folks, depending upon where they stopped in its evolution. Liberalism moved left, not every one with it.

      • MrsDBliss

        they have no moral vision of what they are progressing to, only an antipathy to what they are progressing from

        Brilliantly put. I will use that one sir.

  • channel.fog

    This is meant to be satire, isn’t it?

  • Jen The Blue

    Excellent article. It is unbelievable that Cameron’s Tories have continued with the thought crimes where Blair left off.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Yes, especially when he and they promised to “sweep it all away” and that promise is even in the Coalition Agreement.

  • agneau

    Do it in your own time and at your own expense.

    • Jen The Blue

      Do what?

      • agneau

        Did you read the title of the peace? I will accommodate your laziness – practise their faith.

        • Jen The Blue

          Could have been anything – there was no reference to it being the title.

          Presumably you know enough about Christianity to know it a way of living life…..many, many people have died for their Faith when the regime has been hostile.

    • MrsDBliss

      Great. You agree with arguments about private companies having to pay for other people’s sex lives then?
      Interesting that Hobby Lobby was more giving than you though. After all they said we’ll pay, but not for abortificants.

  • derekemery

    The “lieberals” or Labour and LIb Dems and miles away (way to the left) from the views and needs of average people. They are never in politics because they want to serve the needs of the people because that would mean listening to what the public want and acting on it. They are far too superior for that. They are driven by their own very biased dogma and see politics as an opportunity to force the public to be subject their dogma.
    They see the public as brainless cattle who can be prodded or whipped into shape to follow their beliefs. Unfortunately the public are capable of independent thought and assessment of situations and make up their own minds.
    Politicians are pretty much seen today as lacking any moral conscience and consumed by self-interest (either by their dogma or the financial opportunities that present to MPs or often by both). When more comes out about child abuse involving politicians their stock with the public will decrease further.
    What their dogma based approach to politics creates is an ever-widening gap between politicians and public who are cynical about the behaviour of politicians with ever declining numbers being paid members of the three parties. In turn this is creating a gap for parties like UKIP who are reflecting the views of the public rather than trying to force their views onto a public that holds contrary views. Only metrosexuals hold the same beliefs as the coaliton elite and very few ordinary people want the inevitable downside in services and jobs etc that comes with mass immigration