Johm Zmirak wonders "Why Don’t Secularists Just Be Honest and Outlaw Christianity?" The answer is simple. They'd rather not have the debate. They'll do it Grima Wormtongue style. I mean, why pick a fight when you're already winning.
Zmirak is right that banning Christianity from the public sphere is the eventual goal of the left. But they'll never say it. They'll just let judges chip away at it.
The recent Barronelle Stutzmann decision amounts to a Christian ban. The court is essentially saying you can't be a business owner and a Christian. Soon it'll be that you can't be a citizen and a Christian.
He writes at The Stream:
So I wish that our masters would just admit what they’re really up to and try to enact a Christian ban. All they would need to do is create a case that makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which gives the judges the pretext to exempt Christianity from the First Amendment’s protections. I am sure that the legal brains at the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center could find the right test case, and aim it at the creative jurists of the Ninth Circuit Court — confident that the same five-vote majority that issued Obergefell v. Hodges would vote their way. In fact, they really ought to, if they want to honor that precedent, as well as that shining lodestar of American moral thinking, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.The only Christians the elites like are those that twist and mangle and garble the faith into something resembling their secularist utopia.
Perhaps the case could center on Christian parents who wish to home-school a child, or a Christian college that doesn’t want to hire openly homosexual faculty, or a doctor who won’t perform abortions. I leave the specifics to our betters. I know that they’re up to the task.
I have faith that Ruth Bader Ginbsurg and Anthony Kennedy can come up with some narrative that proves that the Founding Fathers really meant to ban orthodox Christianity, while protecting other creeds. Those justices could “prove” to their own satisfaction that the whole Bill of Rights is really a recipe for chicken mole. And the rest of our elites (including too many Republicans) would back them up, and call that decision “settled law.”
Decades of training and practice of modern legal theory have trained these experts to see through the tangle of messy words with specific denotations and plausible connotations, and ignore the grubby historical context and plain intentions of the Founders — and hear the clear, pure voice of our “living Constitution.” That god, whom Caesar demands that we worship, will never fail. It can be trusted. It will always tell the world just what the flesh and the devil would like us to hear.