The challenge of liberal dogmatism requires a united and robust response

Paul Diamond writes:

This time we are not hearing the voice of tyrants, but the siren call of equality, diversity, and freedom from sexual prejudice and discrimination. What reasonable person would not want this? Anyone who opposes this, so the argument goes, must be a bigot and should be denied their human dignity (because such a person denies dignity to others).

In the midst of these developments, the intrinsic value of free speech has been lost, and government and quasi-government institutions seek to tell us what we can say, and even what we can think. In the process, the rule of law is subverted to this cause.

My American friends tell me that they have the First Amendment; and it is still strong. But we should not underestimate what judges can do. In my cases on the wearing of crosses at British Airways and at Exeter Hospital, a total of 13 British judges denied that the Christian cross was a manifestation of religion. In another case, a tribunal recently held that Sunday was not a core component of the Christian faith. These decisions were reversed either in Europe or in national courts, but an appeal was required on these basic issues.

The price of citizenship in the United Kingdom is indeed high for the religious adherent. In a case I took to the European Court (McFarlane v United Kingdom), Mr. McFarlane was dismissed for the mere expression of opposition to same-sex marriage, although he could have been easily accommodated in his work as a relationship counselor by only counseling different-sex couples. In another case, a housing trust worker was disciplined and demoted for expressing the view of belief in marriage.

The new liberal dogma says that a Jew or Christian is a bigot if they do not believe in the homosexual agenda.

The challenge of liberal dogmatism, like the challenge of national and international socialism before it, requires a united and robust response.

Please read more here