Kerby Anderson

Michael Barone asks a troubling question: “Why is it considered liberal to compel others to say or fund things they don’t believe?” He raises this question in light of the three Supreme Court cases that struck down compelled speech but in two cases by the narrowest of margins.

He wonders why liberals on the court and progressives in society aren’t disturbed by attempts to compel speech. In the past, liberal justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes supported free speech and freedom of association. Today liberal Supreme Court justices “don’t see a constitutional problem with compelling crisis pregnancy centers to send messages they find repugnant . . . or forcing people to participate in ceremonies prohibited by their religion.”

David French is concerned that liberals don’t understand why conscience is so important to Christians. He mentions two articles that lament the fact that Catholic hospitals have restrictions because they hold to Catholic doctrine. He has said this before in other contexts. The secular society essentially says, we appreciate you feeding, housing, and caring for the poor but you must do it by advancing the worldview we prefer. If you don’t, we will “pass laws that violate your conscience. We’ll call you bigots and misogynists when you resist.”

He uses an analogy to illustrate how liberals and progressives misunderstand religious faith. He says, “it’s almost like some folks believe a religious worldview is like a Jenga tower — you can pull out a few planks without causing the whole edifice to collapse.” For critics of religion, they see any religious belief based on conscience as disposable if it contradicts the current politically correct view in society.

These narrow Supreme Court rulings as well as articles complaining about Catholic hospitals that hold to Catholic doctrine illustrate why it is so important that the right judges and justices are nominated and confirmed to the federal courts.