Opinion: Morning Examiner

Does reaction to Hobby Lobby reveal the dark side of American liberalism?

By |
Beltway Confidential,Opinion,Mark Tapscott,Morning Examiner,Supreme Court,First Amendment,Freedom of Religion,Liberalism,Hobby Lobby

Turn on a cable TV news discussion and it won't be long before somebody is accusing somebody else of being a bigot. And that somebody will almost always be the liberal.

In the liberal determination to attribute political problems to the evil isms -- racism, genderism, anti-gay prejudice, male privilege, etc. -- there lurks utter intolerance just beneath the surface.

The problem is that, having defined political opponents as evil, it is then only a short step to justifying the suppression of contrary viewpoints.

You can't say that

Occasionally this dark side of contemporary liberalism is exposed to the light, as happened earlier this week with the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision affirming the First Amendment's freedom of religion in the workplace.

The Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney on Tuesday described the liberal reaction to the claims of the Green family that owns Hobby Lobby:

"This is not a fight about banning or denying access to contraception. It's about forcing employers to pay for contraception against their will."

Thus, Carney observes, "some parts of activist Left see the conscience of religious conservatives as simply bigoted and deserving of no respect."

No public place for faith

A column in the Huffington Post on the Hobby Lobby decision by Ronald Lindsay illustrates such liberal intolerance, according to RedState.com diarist "Streiff."

Lindsay fears that "unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court may now be resurrecting concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen, or at least between being a good Catholic and an impartial judge."

In other words, according to Lindsay, it's time "to ask the uncomfortable question: Is it appropriate to have six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court?"

No, really, you can't say that!

So, would Lindsay set aside the Constitution's ban on religious tests for holding public office? He doesn't mention it in his column but he must be aware of it.

By posing his concern in mathematical terms, Lindsay implies the issue should be resolved with quotas to define how many justices representing particular religious views can be allowed on the high court.

That would, of course, be a religious test for public office that requires government to define representative proportions of each view.

Not much room there for equal protection of the right of religious freedom. That's the dark side — for many contemporary liberals, individual rights are whatever the government decides they are, not the inalienable possession of every individual.

Somewhere King George III is muttering "I told you so."

On today's washingtonexaminer.com

Editorial: Supreme Court cracks down on a trial lawyer gold mine.

Columnists/Jed Babbin: Obama's policies isolate Israel like never before.

Columnists/Philip Klein: Hobby Lobby debate exposes weaknesses of employer-based health insurance.

Columnists/David Freddoso: Like the U.S. men's soccer team, conservatives are working on their offense.

Columnists/Michael Barone: Obama piling up 9-0 Supreme Court losses.

Columnists/Cal Thomas: The Federalist Papers are the Constitution's DNA.

Beltway Confidential/Sean Higgins: Illinois home care-givers still have to get SEIU training despite Supreme Court decision.

Beltway Confidential/Chuck Hoskinson: Oklahoma congressman denied access to HHS immigrant facility in his home state.

PennAve/David M. Drucker: John McCain is the Republican who followed in Teddy Kennedy's steps.

PennAve/Brian Hughes: Is Julian Castro on the fast-track to the Democratic ticket in 2016?

Legal Newsline/Staff writer: New York AG reaches deal with DAV foundation, fundraisers.

In other news

The Washington Post: I watched terrorist beheadings for the CIA and here's what I learned.

CBS News: Elusive ISIS leader becoming the new Osama bin Laden.

USA Today: Heroin deals moving from back alleys to mall parking lots.

Righty Playbook

American Thinker: Why did Bill Ayers agree to Fox interview?

The Federalist: Navigating the waters of a broken life, an abortion story.

Washington Free Beacon: Democrats provide IRS the best defense campaign money can buy.

Bonus must-read

The American Conservative: What is "ethical conservatism?"

Lefty Playbook

The Daily Beast: P.J. O'Rourke's 27 reasons to ban the Fourth of July.

The American Prospect: 15 major decisions this year from a partisan Supreme Court.

Salon: Why Penn Jillette didn't want to be a stereotypical Hollywood liberal.

Bonus must-read

Mother Jones: Supreme Court broadens Hobby Lobby to cover all forms of birth control.

Blog Right

Jammie Wearing Fools: Medical staff warned to shut up about immigrants' health issues.

Yid With Lid: Mother of one of the kidnappers of the Israeli teens says she's proud of him.

Legal Insurrection: Why Calvin Turnquest is the new GOP face of legal immigration.

Blog Left

Talking Points Memo: Tea Party forces still control the GOP agenda.

Slate: Obama's "So sue me" taunt has bipartisan appeal.

Crooks and Liars: Laura Ingraham's nativist rhetoric too extreme for Bill O'Reilly.

View article comments Leave a comment

More from washingtonexaminer.com