David French at National Review: “Unless, of course, you’re an offended atheist. Then, the same pop culture that mocks Christian sensibilities will treat seriously your utterly vile outrage at a mourning mother’s expression of love for her fallen son. Then, that means the same federal courts that have consistently held that outrage alone does not constitute a recognizable injury will grant ‘offended observers’ special status to challenge displays of perceived religious symbols on public land. In other words, an atheist’s subjective discomfort is sufficient grounds for a federal lawsuit.” | See the Alliance Alert’s “Monuments” for more.
“An Alliance Defending Freedom allied attorney filed a brief Monday with the Supreme Court of Canada in defense of a private Catholic high school being forced to teach a government-mandated ethics and religion course that includes teaching contrary to Catholic belief. In January, the court granted other denominations the right to intervene in the case in defense of the Catholic school.”
Miroslav Volf, Henry B. Wright Professor of Systematic Theology at Yale Divinity School, at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: “Unlike those who think religion should stay out of politics, I think that religious people ought to be free to bring their visions of the good life into the public sphere – into politics as well as other aspects of public life. What’s more, I believe that it would be oppressive to prohibit them from doing so. But as soon as one starts making such an argument, some people raise the threat of religious totalitarianism. (For the record: religious totalitarianism is not the only form of totalitarianism. Indeed, all of the most bloodthirsty forms of totalitarianism over the past century or so – Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism – were not religious in character at all.)”