Barr Warns Cardinal Dolan of ‘Militant Secular Effort’ to Curtail Religious Freedom
Category: News & Politics
Via: tessylo • 4 years ago • 60 commentsBy: Tobias Hoonhout,The National Review
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
Barr Warns Cardinal Dolan of ‘Militant Secular Effort’ to Curtail Religious Freedom
Attorney General William Barr warned New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan of “an organized, militant secular effort” to suppress religion in “the marketplace of ideas” in an interview Wednesday.
“The problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on non-religious people,” Barr told Dolan on his SiriusXM radio show Conversation with Cardinal Dolan . “It’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people, and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Citingd Democrats’ efforts to coerce religious employers to violate their conscience rights as well as their ongoing effort to expand abortion access, Barr has used his platform as attorney general to speak out about what he sees as encroachments on religious liberty. He drew a torrent of criticism in October over a speech at Notre Dame Law School in which he said religiously convicted Americans face “social, educational, and professional ostracism.”
The attorney general explained Wednesday that the Founders believed in “the centrality of religion to the health of American democracy,” and that a loss of popular religiosity was a danger to the republic.
“We believe in the separation of church and state,” Barr stated. “But what permits a limited government and minimal command and control of the population — and allows people to have freedom of choice in their lives — and trust in the people is the fact that they are a people that are capable of disciplining themselves according to moral values.”
Barr also discussed his relationship with President Trump in the interview, and told Dolan how it compared to his time as attorney general in George H.W. Bush’s administration.
“They’re very different,” he explained. “I love both men — H.W., was more low-key. He had a very strong interest in foreign policy in which he really focuses attention on. The interesting thing about President Trump is that he is very hands on, he’ll bring people in to explain things to him, he’ll reach down and bring the experts in, and he listens.”
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
What a steaming pile of shit.
Lying scumbag.
Ive heard some claim that religious freedom is being restricted or denied. But i have yet to see anyone demonstrate where religious freedom has been curtailed or restricted? Seems like a lot of whining and paranoia on their part.
... their freedom to legislate religious cult dogma in order to illegally impose it on the unwilling in a secular country needs to be denied. collectively, religious opinions end at the tax exempt property lines of their dominionist madrasas. thumpers are free to have their religious leaders and bible do their thinking and decision making for them, but they won't be doing mine. not now, not ever.
Agreed.
As well, playing the martyr also inspires resolve.
They do seem to love playing the victim.
Let me see...
Still going to church whenever one wants to? Check
Choice of private religious school or public school? Check
Able to bow head and whisper a prayer at any time day or night? Check
Stupid Jesus fish still on the car? Check
There are other things I'm missing here, but if you have even 1/2 a brain cell I think everyone here gets the point.
Wait, they might be "forced" to bake "gay wedding cakes," right?
Hmmm....do they have a business license?
What difference does that make? Don't you know, baking a cake is somehow a religious function. Lol
Is Holy Water one of the ingredients?
I don't know. Apparently, there's some difference between a regular cake and a "gay wedding cake." But no one seems to know the difference.
flour, sugar, unborn chickens and bovine udder secretions
that was very clever!
Not if you can’t build the church in the first place. Most notoriously, some Muslim groups have had to fight for the right to build mosques or community centers.
There are definitely some limitations on that one, especially in schools or other settings where the practice of religion is construed by some as a violation of the Establishment clause.
Also, does it need to be a whisper? That also sound like a limitation. And it’s not just prayer that is a religious exercise that sees limitations. A lot of people want Muslim women to have to remove the hijab. Rastafarians get pushback on dreadlocks.
And then of course there is issue of providing service like baking, florists, and photography, or benefits like birth control on a medical plan. You might not think they are right to do so, but the people denying these things are doing it - or say they are doing - for religious reasons.
That's if the school staff promotes or leads others in that practice during school time. Otherwise, kids can pray or whatever on their own accord when they wish as long as it does not disrupt a class.
If they're allowed to pray, then there is no limitation. Whispering (or silent) is just being considerate of those around you.
That probably has something to do with school dress codes.
Which is an absurd reason too.
I understand the rule. That's not the point. It's still a restriction or curtailment on religious freedom, even if you think it's a good idea.
It can be, but a lot of rules either get written or survive because they only tend to impact a minority religion.
Again, whether we agree with it or not is not the point. Religious practice is being limited. Religious freedom is not without restrictions.
Separation of church and state is a very good idea. But no one's religious freedom is being limited if a school doesn't promote or engage in it.
Or no one has made a strong enough case against them.
Using your examples of various businesses, operating a business is not a religious function. So no practice is being limited. THat's just an excuse and weak one too.
No. Religious practice is not being limited in any way shape or form whatsoever
True. You're not allowed to go kidnap children, rape them and use them as blood sacrifices regardless of how much some evangelicals or other religious extremists may want to even if their religion demands such rituals. Thank goodness religious freedom under the constitution is not unlimited.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that restrictions exist? A "good reason" for the restriction doesn't change the fact that the restriction exists. Talk about denial!
You have some weird fantasies about the world. Was that the only one came to mind or is there more in there? Do you think that's a natural consequence of anything I mentioned?
Oh? Well then you won't mind if the kindergarten teachers start off with a prayer every morning.
Pretty sure that there is a NT member whose every seed and post revolves around perceived religious persecution from 'secular liberals'.
Must be a bitch living in constant fear due to an overly enlarged amygdala.
Barr is right in all that he said both here and during his Notre Dame speech. It is good that the secular progressives outright contempt of and bigotry toward Christianity and people who are Christians living up to Biblical standards is being exposed and called out.
[deleted]
As a scientist I have no problem with religious fanatics being trashed for their ignorance.
Been at war with ignorant red-neck science deniers my whole life.
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining where religious freedom is being curtailed.
More delusional nonsense, with a hint of paranoia thrown in too.
We clearly seem to have different ideas over what constitutes a "restriction. If you're going to say that religion expression is limited because (for example) one is not allowed to conduct sacrifices according to their religion or blare out prayers 24/7 in certain environments, then you would be correct. But in the context of the discussion, no one is being restricted from religious practice, especially not by "militant secularists." People are still free to believe what they want, attend the religious institution of their choice, and pray to their heart's content, ect.. No one is being arrested, persecuted, re-educated (or anything else that certain theistic minded individuals would have us believe).
You can either do whatever you want, or you can't. If you can't, it's a restriction. The word means what it means. I think maybe you just don't like the idea that you're in the position of siding with people who want to restrict. (On the flip side, for example, homophobes don't like being called homophobes, but it doesn't change reality) I think it would be more honest to admit the restrictions ("own it," as people say) and then argue the necessity of the reasons.
Arrested? Not usually, but it can happen. I would say persecution and reeducation tends to happen more at the social level than through government action.
Of course the Oregon v Smith case set the precedent that generally applicable laws supersede religious practice. That's how you get arrested. Maybe you're blocking access where you're preaching, or sacrificing an animal, or smoking something that's an illegal substance. I don't even disagree with this dynamic in all cases, although the circumstances of the Smith case were outrageous enough that Congress was moved to write the first RFRA type law aimed at protecting religious practice.
There is always going to be some level of conflict where we don't have total religious freedom. The United States is full of conflicts between total freedom and order.
That's quite a well thought out, researched response/s. I think the AG's thoughts on the subject stand undisputed.
I wonder how much pornstar barr had to pay to get hold of all those original underage girl videos from his pal jeff epstein.
Undisputed my ass.
He’s a great American and an awesome Attorney General. The best one since Edwin Meese and could be best ever before he retires.
I couldn't agree more. Men like him are needed in theses times.
Religion has had too much power for too long
Hey, here's another area where we agree
And yet, some complain they're being restricted or persecuted. Go figure. Quite a laughable claim too, considering the majority of the country identifies with a religious affiliation of some type or denomination.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
removed for context
Barr is a despicable human being.
"Losing religious liberty/freedoms" (which they are not) is just a code word for not being able to discriminate against anyone who is not white; people that are gays, lesbians, transgenders and of course women.
Nailed it!
She usually does.
There is NOT "an organized, militant secular effort” to suppress religion in “the marketplace of ideas”. There is an organized effort by rational people to curb Christian Exceptionalism. Being called out on their bullshit isn't suppression of religion it's push back on generations of suppression by religion.
Some seem to equate challenging their beliefs or claims as persecution or attempts to restricthe religious rights.
Yes, from the outside it seems as if they don't have faith an omnipotent deity wouldn't need me to kneel in subjugation for them to feel good about themselves, but in reality playing the martyr is just baked into their dogma.
Dogma, or delusion?
Is there a difference?
Not really.
Only if one is a Unitarian Universalist or a follower of the religion of atheism.
Spewing nonsense like claiming atheism is a religion only makes you look foolish. You do realize that, right?
I think that’s the case whenever you put power in the control of the masses, be it democracy or communism. If society doesn’t look to a moral leader, then the people themselves should be a moral people. I wouldn’t say that requires everybody be of the same religious belief or that they derive their morality from religion specifically. I do think it helps if most or all of the people have some set of basic moral philosophies that they can agree on.
“The problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on non-religious people, It’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people, and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
The problem today is that religious people have been allowed to impose their views on non-religious people for centuries, and now that they are being told "No, you can't do that anymore!" they're getting bitter and butthurt and do nothing but whine and complain about what they perceive as a loss of their expected, assumed privilege.