But all I see in his column is campaigning for old privileges. Hell, Christianity invented campaigning for your beliefs and against others’, vs. accepting those handed down from time immemorial. When others do the same today, they learned it from Christianity. Christianity attained privileges, such as a certain expectation of access to “the public square” even governmentally-financed, because it earned it through evangelization, not because it came in without reason and just demanded privileges of pagan princes, chieftains, etc. Now that Christianity has a serious challenge, we fall back on privileges? Don’t we have the Good News anymore? Religion in the USA is still, for now, legally a “free market” (in sociological terms); in fact, the USA has the most religious population in the free world, supposedly because of the religious free market. (Northern Ireland is up there, but the religious situation there isn’t comparable to here IMHO: I believe they’re so religious because of the 500 years of wholesale, violent or oppressive “sectarian” conflict.) The “secularism” said to be advancing in Western European nations with traditions of sectarian Establishments — Latin or Protestant — is sociologically not comparable to here; research suggests Establishment actually has hurt religion there, in contrast to the USA.

Look: Even Pope and Patriarch John Paul II of Old Rome, someone with whom I had many disagreements as a Catholic, said what Western Europe needed was “re-evangelization.” Supposedly he said Russia would do it: Orthodoxy. Not re-privileged Latinism, not re-privileged Protestantism, but us! Why or when he said that, I haven’t been able to find out. But my kneejerk reaction to getting back in bed with them when they’ve supposedly been rejected by the populace is something like, “Haven’t Europeans already been inoculated enough against The Truth? Do we have to collaborate in giving them a booster shot, instead of The Real Thing? Sure, we say certain things are wrong or undesirable or even spiritually risky. But IIUC we have different, older, better, TRUE reasons why, and better ways of putting it, which Europeans won’t hear as long as we’re agreeing public statements with partisan, reactionary, “philosophizing” Latins or partisan, reactionary, “philosophizing” Protestants. Hell, I’VE rejected Latinism and Protestantism TOO!!!”

I’d retitle Chaput’s — or a better — piece, “Those who arrogate the sovereignty of God over human society are the most dangerous enemies, period!”

“Ecumenism of the right” may be an even greater temptation to Holy o/Orthodoxy than “ecumenism of the left.” Especially if we think it’s “the end of civilization” (yet again). But “there’s nothing new under the sun” as Scripture says. The last time civilization ended, Augustine of Hippo made costly errors that are now bringing down this civilization. We must be wary of planting the seeds of destruction (though not of the destruction of the Body of Christ, against Which death will not prevail since His Bodily Resurrection).

Sincerely,
Leo Peter

For decades now, we’ve been witnessing in our two countries — and throughout the democratic nations of the West — a campaign against Christian beliefs. The process clothes itself in the language of progress and secularization. But it has little to do with humanity’s moral development. It has a lot to do with kicking Christianity out of the public square.

The campaign against Christian belief was much longer…. It is about 2000 years old.
Nicodemus was a religious ruler, teacher, and Pharisee who believed in Jesus; he was a secret Christian. He came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
John 3:1-2

Nicodemus defended the apostles, saying that if Christianity “be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
Two thousands years later, after hundreds of thousands were martyred, those who love the darkness are still fighting to overthrow Christianity.

And here’s an irony, George: We often hear complaints about people who go to church/synagogue/temple one day a week but don’t live it the other six. This “freedom of worship” thing could be the beginning of a move to make sure that they can’t.

It appears I misunderstood what was actually on trial here (from the SCOTUS site):

(1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter; (2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and (3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

So, unless I’m misreading this, it seems that what’s at stake is not whether people can publicly express their religious views but whether they can be sued for emotional distress by non-public entities for expressing them. Also interesting is that some feel that ruling for the Phelps will actually be a negative for churches that may wish to bar certain groups from attendance (such as Catholics whose services have been interrupted by activists).

Wesley, this is precisely what SecState Clinton spoke about a couple of months ago. For her, it was all about “freedom of worship,” not “freedom of religion.”

Sincere or not, if the Supreme Court deems their protests unlawful, then we enter that slippery slope of “hate crime” legislation, where crimes are adjudicated on thoughts rather than actions. The criminal code will follow the dictates of political correctness and yes, preaching the Gospel might be criminalized because in many cases it is offensive especially to secularized sensibilities (as we have seen in Canada already).

As offensive as the actions of the Phelps cult are, their right to free speech should not be abridged based on their offensiveness alone. I’m not sure why the Court chose to hear it at all. The right to free speech and assembly in situations like this has already been established (the Nazis in Skokie for example). I hope they are not up to mischief.

This could have easily been handled by local codes.

The theology of Westboro is deemed hostile and offensive by many, but isn’t the Gospel itself a “scandal” to the world? My concern is that stifling them could set a precedent of saying that the public expression of religious faith (even such as done by open-air preachers) could be deemed unprotected speech if it makes some people “uncomfortable”.